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

lanceman wrote:“ And Go read the HSCA report on the photos.”


I have done so. It seems to me that the HSCA analysis of the backyard photos was thorough and demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that the backyard photos are not fakes or composites and were made with Oswalds camera. The fine lines evident under extreme magnification were plausibly explained on the very next page. Two critics of the photos authenticity were given an opportunity to present their case. They ultimately backed away from their objections, stating their original conclusions were based on poor quality copies. The HSCA analysts  raised the same questions I thought of such as why forgers would make more than one fake photograph and why didn’t they destroy the camera and negatives. Further, I wonder why the forgers would not use the entirety of Oswald’s face instead of grafting it onto the chin of a stand-in? If you have any technical objections to the conclusions the HSCA reached, please share them.


One possibility the HSCA did not address was that the photos were taken sometime closer to the date of the assassination. The HSCA agreed with the Warren Commission that the photos were most likely taken on March 31, 1963. I used an online tool that given a date, time and location, calculates the shadow lengths, sun altitude and azimuth.


https://www.suncalc.org


The HSCA stated that the backyard photos were taken at an orientation (presumably inferred by the orientation of fixed objects such as the fence, posts etc. of the backyard of 214 Neely St.) of 70 degrees north of east with the sun in the southwest quadrant of the sky (presumably in mid-afternoon). I assumed 2:00 PM on March 31, 1963.

Using the SunCalc tool, I looked for a time in September-October to see a good match for the shadow length, sun altitude and azimuth which matched those of March 31, 1963. I found the best match was on September 11, 1963. This makes sense since March 31 was 10 days after the vernal equinox and September 11 was 10 days before the autumnal equinox.

March 31, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.03.31/14:00/1/3

September 11, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.09.11/14:58/1/3

They are not an exact match but are very close.

The problem is, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald and the camera were in New Orleans on September 11, 1963.

Unless other convincing evidence or explanations are forthcoming, I’m concluding that the photos are not fakes, were taken in late March 1963 with the knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I’m not sure the HSCA explanation for the fine lines in the chin area is really “plausible”. The panel had no fucking idea what caused those lines, and if they did  they wouldn’t have needed to invent four mutually exclusive explanations to cover their own ass. 

Based on the final report, the HSCA panel also tried and failed to find evidence of a similar anomaly in a genuine photograph. The phrase “similar but less pronounced” basically translates into “we failed to reproduce the lines with our enhancement process but found something that looked kinda sorta similar that we can bullshit into sounding good for our final report”. They knew it was bullshit too, otherwise they wouldn’t have invented three additional bullshit explanations with zero supporting evidence. 

Could one of those bullshit explanations be correct? Sure, but the HSCA was clearly biased and had no intention of even considering an unnatural explanation for the chin lines. The findings of the HSCA panel were by definition inconclusive, despite what they wrote in their final report, so the only way to verify if the photos are genuine is to perform a new examination with modern technology.

JFK_FNG wrote:

lanceman wrote:“ And Go read the HSCA report on the photos.”


I have done so. It seems to me that the HSCA analysis of the backyard photos was thorough and demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that the backyard photos are not fakes or composites and were made with Oswalds camera. The fine lines evident under extreme magnification were plausibly explained on the very next page. Two critics of the photos authenticity were given an opportunity to present their case. They ultimately backed away from their objections, stating their original conclusions were based on poor quality copies. The HSCA analysts  raised the same questions I thought of such as why forgers would make more than one fake photograph and why didn’t they destroy the camera and negatives. Further, I wonder why the forgers would not use the entirety of Oswald’s face instead of grafting it onto the chin of a stand-in? If you have any technical objections to the conclusions the HSCA reached, please share them.


One possibility the HSCA did not address was that the photos were taken sometime closer to the date of the assassination. The HSCA agreed with the Warren Commission that the photos were most likely taken on March 31, 1963. I used an online tool that given a date, time and location, calculates the shadow lengths, sun altitude and azimuth.


https://www.suncalc.org


The HSCA stated that the backyard photos were taken at an orientation (presumably inferred by the orientation of fixed objects such as the fence, posts etc. of the backyard of 214 Neely St.) of 70 degrees north of east with the sun in the southwest quadrant of the sky (presumably in mid-afternoon). I assumed 2:00 PM on March 31, 1963.

Using the SunCalc tool, I looked for a time in September-October to see a good match for the shadow length, sun altitude and azimuth which matched those of March 31, 1963. I found the best match was on September 11, 1963. This makes sense since March 31 was 10 days after the vernal equinox and September 11 was 10 days before the autumnal equinox.

March 31, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.03.31/14:00/1/3

September 11, 1963:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/32.77,-96.7294,5/1963.09.11/14:58/1/3

They are not an exact match but are very close.

The problem is, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald and the camera were in New Orleans on September 11, 1963.

Unless other convincing evidence or explanations are forthcoming, I’m concluding that the photos are not fakes, were taken in late March 1963 with the knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I’m not sure the HSCA explanation for the fine lines in the chin area is really “plausible”. The panel had no fucking idea what caused those lines, and if they did  they wouldn’t have needed to invent four mutually exclusive explanations to cover their own ass. 

Based on the final report, the HSCA panel also tried and failed to find evidence of a similar anomaly in a genuine photograph. The phrase “similar but less pronounced” basically translates into “we failed to reproduce the lines with our enhancement process but found something that looked kinda sorta similar that we can bullshit into sounding good for our final report”. They knew it was bullshit too, otherwise they wouldn’t have invented three additional bullshit explanations with zero supporting evidence. 

Could one of those bullshit explanations be correct? Sure, but the HSCA was clearly biased and had no intention of even considering an unnatural explanation for the chin lines. The findings of the HSCA panel were by definition inconclusive, despite what they wrote in their final report, so the only way to verify if the photos are genuine is to perform a new examination with modern technology.

Yes, and the last official Government examination and analysis of the backyard photographs was performed in 1978.
Despite the rhetoric from the HSCA photographic panel, there remains unexplained anomalies within the full frame positive print taken from Warren Commission exhibit CE 749 (The same negative used to create the cropped positive print version known as CE 133B).

Based on the frame-edge markings, the camera that took the backyard photos was matched to the camera that was supposed to be Oswald’s. Photos taken in New Orleans of Marina and the older daughter also had identical markings. So that camera had followed the Oswalds to New Orleans. It cannot be ruled out that the camera belonged to the Paines since the New Orleans photos could have been taken by her using the camera. I recall the Jeff Carter series discussing this possibility. If so, it’s significant that Ruth did not take any pictures of her own children who I believed accompanied her to New Orleans. Whether the camera was Oswald’s, the Paines or persons unknown is a separate issue from photo fakery.

Regarding the fine lines and the plausibility of the explanations provided by the HSCA, if there is something implausible about the reasons given, isn’t it up to those that are not satisfied with the explanations to provide their own reasons why the explanations are lacking? Perhaps accompanied by a physical example or two? 

One photo expert who’s book on photo fakery that I cited previously was dismissed as being with the intelligence community. That did not stop Doug Horne from using him as a source in his work on the Zapruder film alteration hypothesis. Both the Aerospace Corp. and the California Image Processing Institute (now apparently known as the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute) both receive contracts for work from the defense and intelligence agencies. Both did the work that found the fine lines. Is their work admissible or not?

The HSCA could have ditched the entire issues associated with the extreme magnification (which they brought up) but didn’t. Why? Particularly since they did go with the now discredited acoustics evidence for multiple assassins.

Regarding the photo experts that backed away from claims that the BYPs were faked, I had mistakenly conflated the expert regarding “badgeman” with those of the BYPs. However, the points raised by the photo expert in the UK (Malcolm Thompson) and the Canadian photo expert were addressed in the report by the HSCA. I was unable to find a report by either. I did manage to find the documentary whose transcripts were presented as an addendum to the HSCA report.

https://youtu.be/IO2MTfyfQfs

Thompson suggests the photos are a montage of body parts and part of Oswald’s head. Why wouldn’t they just use a body posed at the scene and simply replace the entire head? They way he suggests that the arm was unnaturally attached to the body makes it sound like either Frankenstein or Picasso was involved.

Again I ask, have any of those who claim these photos are fakes tried to use the techniques they believe could create forgeries that could pass an expert’s evaluation? Would sophisticated forgers try to pass something off that apparently was easy for so many to spot as a fake?

These come from Richard Bernabei's Archive in Kingston, ONT. With thanks to Dennis Morissette

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage



Robinsons montage "Fading Away" 1858

If you doubt that a single black and white image could not be produced using the montage process without being detected as a layered montage then you might want to think again. Robinson used 5 different negatives to produce his famous photograph in 1858. What may come as a further surprise to some is that Digital photographic processing was available in 1963.
It is not beyond the realms that delicate, detailed extremely skilled montage work was applied to the Exhibits known as the Backyard photographs.

The last known official examination of these photos was undertaken in 1978. That's 45 years ago! So when we speak of "the experts" who have examined the photographs it's referring to people who were using equipment and skill sets from over 4 decades ago. 

What hasn't been addressed properly is the discrepancy in quality between DEM 133a and Stovall CE 133a. And the possibility that the negatives were produced to appear as if they had been taken by the IR camera.

Based on the frame-edge markings, the camera that took the backyard photos was matched to the camera that was supposed to be Oswald’s.


That's what you've been told or led to believe. But that comes from the HSCA photographic panel from over 4 decades ago. From the Government House Select Committee - who we now know were predominantly there to rubber stamp most of what the Warren Commission had established.

The Rockerfella Commission not only mislead the public about the CIA's activities but also completely disregarded the entire report from Stephen Jaffe on the BYP's - a report which went into details of how the photos had been manipulated. In fact his entire testimony was struck from the record.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf

I found another critique of the HSCA work on the BYP analyisis.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16233#relPageId=33

Stephen Jaffe, was the first independent official investigator to examine the BYP's in early 1968. He was the first person known to have questioned the photographs authenticity officially for the Garrison's New Orleans  DA's office. It was his work which then led others to come to the same conclusions years later. For the record those "others" simply parroted what Jaffe had discovered.

Mick_Purdy wrote:Stephen Jaffe, was the first independent official investigator to examine the BYP's in early 1968. He was the first person known to have questioned the photographs authenticity officially for the Garrison's New Orleans  DA's office. It was his work which then led others to come to the same conclusions years later. For the record those "others" simply parroted what Jaffe had discovered.

Is there a write-up on his findings/objections? I saw a thread on the EF where he said to check his web site but I did, found his web site but didn’t see anything.

Thanks.

https://merdist.com/wp/2017/02/22/the-backyard-photos/

Vinny wrote:https://merdist.com/wp/2017/02/22/the-backyard-photos/

Thanks! I’ll take a look.

One aspect that gives me pause is that, to my non-expert mind, it seems the easiest way to fake these photos would be to have a person of Oswald’s size pose in the backyard with rifle, pistol and newspapers and then substitute Oswald’s face. Yet many of the claims of photo fakery suggest that body parts are also being overlaid such as the arm. And that the result is that the position of the body is unstable. And why use the original chin? If I were supervising a frame-up, I would say it looks fake and tell my photo expert to try again.

Were the photos intended for some part of the Walker shooting where the amount of attention would not be anything like the JFK assassination?

I’m looking at one of Hany Farid’s studies that claims to show the backyard photos give no evidence of fakery. One of the problems in gauging Oswald’s height in the photos is his peculiar stance as he is leaning back away from the camera which makes him appear shorter relative to objects of known dimensions. Farid’s paper presents an image of the anthropometric figure used to represent Oswald in his computer model standing in an erect posture (page 11 of the reference below). Visually, it strikes me that the legs appear extremely long for a figure claimed to be representative of a 50th percentile human. It occurred to me that Oswald’s New Orleans arrest photo shows Oswald in an erect stance with the convenience of height measurements in the background which would allow a like for like comparison. However, all the online photos of Oswald’s New Orleans arrest are of poor quality.

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf

Can anyone suggest a link to a good quality photo of Oswald’s New Orleans arrest or a full body standing erect photo from his Dallas arrest?

lanceman wrote:Based on the frame-edge markings, the camera that took the backyard photos was matched to the camera that was supposed to be Oswald’s. Photos taken in New Orleans of Marina and the older daughter also had identical markings. So that camera had followed the Oswalds to New Orleans. It cannot be ruled out that the camera belonged to the Paines since the New Orleans photos could have been taken by her using the camera. I recall the Jeff Carter series discussing this possibility. If so, it’s significant that Ruth did not take any pictures of her own children who I believed accompanied her to New Orleans. Whether the camera was Oswald’s, the Paines or persons unknown is a separate issue from photo fakery.

Regarding the fine lines and the plausibility of the explanations provided by the HSCA, if there is something implausible about the reasons given, isn’t it up to those that are not satisfied with the explanations to provide their own reasons why the explanations are lacking? Perhaps accompanied by a physical example or two? 

One photo expert who’s book on photo fakery that I cited previously was dismissed as being with the intelligence community. That did not stop Doug Horne from using him as a source in his work on the Zapruder film alteration hypothesis. Both the Aerospace Corp. and the California Image Processing Institute (now apparently known as the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute) both receive contracts for work from the defense and intelligence agencies. Both did the work that found the fine lines. Is their work admissible or not?

The HSCA could have ditched the entire issues associated with the extreme magnification (which they brought up) but didn’t. Why? Particularly since they did go with the now discredited acoustics evidence for multiple assassins.

Regarding the photo experts that backed away from claims that the BYPs were faked, I had mistakenly conflated the expert regarding “badgeman” with those of the BYPs. However, the points raised by the photo expert in the UK (Malcolm Thompson) and the Canadian photo expert were addressed in the report by the HSCA. I was unable to find a report by either. I did manage to find the documentary whose transcripts were presented as an addendum to the HSCA report.

https://youtu.be/IO2MTfyfQfs

Thompson suggests the photos are a montage of body parts and part of Oswald’s head. Why wouldn’t they just use a body posed at the scene and simply replace the entire head? They way he suggests that the arm was unnaturally attached to the body makes it sound like either Frankenstein or Picasso was involved.

Again I ask, have any of those who claim these photos are fakes tried to use the techniques they believe could create forgeries that could pass an expert’s evaluation? Would sophisticated forgers try to pass something off that apparently was easy for so many to spot as a fake?

Where is the justification for this claim that the acoustical evidence is 'discredited'? James Barger and colleagues returned to this issue in Josiah Thompson's 'Last Second in Dallas' (2021) and demonstrated the work four decades earlier was absolutely sound. Specifically, focusing on a previously neglected example of crosstalk ('I'll check it'), the suspect waveforms detected on the recording are exactly at the time and place they should be to correspond to HB McLain's motorcycle approaching the corner of Houston and Elm, thus vindicating Don Thomas' argument. 

I looked into the BYPs last year. It was never something I took a particular interest in beyond viewing it as obvious that they were fairly crude fakes. Superimposing the head of the Oswald figure in the photos on the New Orleans mugshot (with eyes and mouth as a reference) the width of the head above the ears is 12.5% larger in the BYPs. That's a huge discrepancy. It is also clear that the hair and forehead of the Oswald figure has been retouched extensively. There are several other examples of airbrushing/retouching throughout the BYPs.

Why would the forgers necessarily have to be sophisticated? The BYPs (as well as the alleged rifle and pistol order) predate the assassination by over 6 months and (in my opinion) were not part of a plan at that stage to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder. However, the timing does appear to synch with the so-called attempt on Walker's life.

The Thompson book delves deeper into the contribution from 'experts' into the Kennedy case and beyond (another cover-up involved South Africa's detonation of a nuclear device in the late 70s). Most rely on funding from the US government and military. Whereas the science surrounding the acoustical studies may be confusing to the layperson, I don't believe that applies to photography.

My view is that Malcolm Thompson was 'persuaded' (in order not to rock the boat) to backtrack on his original conclusion.

lanceman wrote:I’m looking at one of Hany Farid’s studies that claims to show the backyard photos give no evidence of fakery. One of the problems in gauging Oswald’s height in the photos is his peculiar stance as he is leaning back away from the camera which makes him appear shorter relative to objects of known dimensions. Farid’s paper presents an image of the anthropometric figure used to represent Oswald in his computer model standing in an erect posture (page 11 of the reference below). Visually, it strikes me that the legs appear extremely long for a figure claimed to be representative of a 50th percentile human. It occurred to me that Oswald’s New Orleans arrest photo shows Oswald in an erect stance with the convenience of height measurements in the background which would allow a like for like comparison. However, all the online photos of Oswald’s New Orleans arrest are of poor quality.

https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10.pdf

Can anyone suggest a link to a good quality photo of Oswald’s New Orleans arrest or a full body standing erect photo from his Dallas arrest?

Lanceman, Hany Farid's "study" is nothing more than propaganda. It's about as unscientific as it gets. For all the graphics, for all the computer images, and paragraphs of "scientific" literature he completely ignored the core issues of the anomalies we see in the photographs. He made it all about the stance - and his method in how he achieved his 3D model from one BYP was flawed.

I fail to see how looking at photographs of Oswald in his mug shots will assist in any way. To compare what?
https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/img/10009748

Redfern wrote:

lanceman wrote:Based on the frame-edge markings, the camera that took the backyard photos was matched to the camera that was supposed to be Oswald’s. Photos taken in New Orleans of Marina and the older daughter also had identical markings. So that camera had followed the Oswalds to New Orleans. It cannot be ruled out that the camera belonged to the Paines since the New Orleans photos could have been taken by her using the camera. I recall the Jeff Carter series discussing this possibility. If so, it’s significant that Ruth did not take any pictures of her own children who I believed accompanied her to New Orleans. Whether the camera was Oswald’s, the Paines or persons unknown is a separate issue from photo fakery.

Regarding the fine lines and the plausibility of the explanations provided by the HSCA, if there is something implausible about the reasons given, isn’t it up to those that are not satisfied with the explanations to provide their own reasons why the explanations are lacking? Perhaps accompanied by a physical example or two? 

One photo expert who’s book on photo fakery that I cited previously was dismissed as being with the intelligence community. That did not stop Doug Horne from using him as a source in his work on the Zapruder film alteration hypothesis. Both the Aerospace Corp. and the California Image Processing Institute (now apparently known as the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute) both receive contracts for work from the defense and intelligence agencies. Both did the work that found the fine lines. Is their work admissible or not?

The HSCA could have ditched the entire issues associated with the extreme magnification (which they brought up) but didn’t. Why? Particularly since they did go with the now discredited acoustics evidence for multiple assassins.

Regarding the photo experts that backed away from claims that the BYPs were faked, I had mistakenly conflated the expert regarding “badgeman” with those of the BYPs. However, the points raised by the photo expert in the UK (Malcolm Thompson) and the Canadian photo expert were addressed in the report by the HSCA. I was unable to find a report by either. I did manage to find the documentary whose transcripts were presented as an addendum to the HSCA report.

https://youtu.be/IO2MTfyfQfs

Thompson suggests the photos are a montage of body parts and part of Oswald’s head. Why wouldn’t they just use a body posed at the scene and simply replace the entire head? They way he suggests that the arm was unnaturally attached to the body makes it sound like either Frankenstein or Picasso was involved.

Again I ask, have any of those who claim these photos are fakes tried to use the techniques they believe could create forgeries that could pass an expert’s evaluation? Would sophisticated forgers try to pass something off that apparently was easy for so many to spot as a fake?

Where is the justification for this claim that the acoustical evidence is 'discredited'? James Barger and colleagues returned to this issue in Josiah Thompson's 'Last Second in Dallas' (2021) and demonstrated the work four decades earlier was absolutely sound. Specifically, focusing on a previously neglected example of crosstalk ('I'll check it'), the suspect waveforms detected on the recording are exactly at the time and place they should be to correspond to HB McLain's motorcycle approaching the corner of Houston and Elm, thus vindicating Don Thomas' argument. 

I looked into the BYPs last year. It was never something I took a particular interest in beyond viewing it as obvious that they were fairly crude fakes. Superimposing the head of the Oswald figure in the photos on the New Orleans mugshot (with eyes and mouth as a reference) the width of the head above the ears is 12.5% larger in the BYPs. That's a huge discrepancy. It is also clear that the hair and forehead of the Oswald figure has been retouched extensively. There are several other examples of airbrushing/retouching throughout the BYPs.

Why would the forgers necessarily have to be sophisticated? The BYPs (as well as the alleged rifle and pistol order) predate the assassination by over 6 months and (in my opinion) were not part of a plan at that stage to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder. However, the timing does appear to synch with the so-called attempt on Walker's life.

The Thompson book delves deeper into the contribution from 'experts' into the Kennedy case and beyond (another cover-up involved South Africa's detonation of a nuclear device in the late 70s). Most rely on funding from the US government and military. Whereas the science surrounding the acoustical studies may be confusing to the layperson, I don't believe that applies to photography.

My view is that Malcolm Thompson was 'persuaded' (in order not to rock the boat) to backtrack on his original conclusion.

Hi Redfern, nice to see you here.

Where is the justification for this claim that the acoustical evidence is 'discredited'? James Barger and colleagues returned to this issue in Josiah Thompson's 'Last Second in Dallas' (2021) and demonstrated the work four decades earlier was absolutely sound. Specifically, focusing on a previously neglected example of crosstalk ('I'll check it'), the suspect waveforms detected on the recording are exactly at the time and place they should be to correspond to HB McLain's motorcycle approaching the corner of Houston and Elm, thus vindicating Don Thomas' argument. 

Mate thanks for sharing this info, I hadn't been aware of Thompsons latest book from 2021 so cheers for that.

“Where is the justification for this claim that the acoustical evidence is 'discredited'?“


My understanding is that there is no photographic evidence to put McClain at the corner of Elm and Houston at the time of the shooting. Maybe Thompson knows differently, I haven’t read his book. McLain states that he did not have the stuck mike, that the sound of the engine of the motorcycle with the stuck mike did not reflect the speed he was traveling and the recording did not record the sound of the siren which he turned on immediately following the shooting.


I agree that the BYP were probably made in connection with the Walker shooting. But why make fakes that look “off”? Did Oswald himself make them to allow himself a defense of obviously being framed if he was implicated in the Walker shooting? I’m starting to come around to Greg’s suggestion that they were some kind of a joke.

“Lanceman, Hany Farid's "study" is nothing more than propaganda. It's about as unscientific as it gets. For all the graphics, for all the computer images, and paragraphs of "scientific" literature he completely ignored the core issues of the anomalies we see in the photographs. He made it all about the stance - and his method in how he achieved his 3D model from one BYP was flawed.

I fail to see how looking at photographs of Oswald in his mug shots will assist in any way. To compare what?
https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/img/10009748

There is anthropometric data that gives details on various dimensions of the human body. If I can show quantitatively that, the waist height of the Oswald in the computer model differs from an actual photo of Oswald, it conclusively undermines Farid’s analysis which was given significant attention. I wish I had the software and skill to overlay Farid’s model with the Oswald mugshot.

https://multisite.eos.ncsu.edu/www-ergocenter-ncsu-edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2016/06/Anthropometric-Detailed-Data-Tables.pdf

Thanks for the link. Wasn’t there a guy named (Ungar?) that had a site with a photographic archive of the JFK assassination? I did a search an nothing came up. But then I’ve noticed in the past year or so, whenever I do a web search, there seem to only be about 5-7 unique hits and the rest just repeat those hits.

lanceman: "My understanding is that there is no photographic evidence to put McClain at the corner of Elm and Houston at the time of the shooting. Maybe Thompson knows differently, I haven’t read his book. McLain states that he did not have the stuck mike, that the sound of the engine of the motorcycle with the stuck mike did not reflect the speed he was traveling and the recording did not record the sound of the siren which he turned on immediately following the shooting.


I agree that the BYP were probably made in connection with the Walker shooting. But why make fakes that look “off”? Did Oswald himself make them to allow himself a defense of obviously being framed if he was implicated in the Walker shooting? I’m starting to come around to Greg’s suggestion that they were some kind of a joke."




There is no photographic or film evidence that places McLain anywhere else at the time of the shots. He would have been behind onlookers just before the Elm-Houston corner. (His helmet may be seen in a couple of Z frames but this requires further investigation.)


The 'McLain-wasn't-there' line of argument was not focused on initially by the so-called Ramsey Panel. It was only after failed attempts to reduce the probability that a shot came from behind the picket fence that these scientists went down the path of claiming that the shots came a minute or so later. From a scientific point of view what really should have followed was an attempt at proving that the patterns on the recordings were random noise and not gunshots, but this never emerged.  


I contend McLain lied and subsequent attempts to place him much further south on Houston are based on the false assumption that the motorcade was travelling at a constant speed. Both James Bowles and Marrion Baker (as 'Officer E' in the Bowles book) said that the motorcade on Houston had slowed almost to a standstill (which would have allowed McLain to bypass several cars). This was presumably caused by the difficulty the presidential limousine had in turning the corner. No less a figure than Roy Truly said it almost clipped the NW kerb corner of Elm.


The order of the suspect shots picked up by an array of microphones in Dealey Plaza conforms exactly to the pattern that would be expected spatially. If the shots were random noise the odds against this happening would be 23 to 1 (for 4 shots) or 119 to 1 (given a fifth match). If the time element is then factored in (the shot pattern travels from Houston onto Elm at approximately 10 mph) the odds against the suspect waveforms being random noise increase greatly.


In the Thompson book, James Barger says he was threatened with a withdrawal of research funding if he didn't revise his conclusion. 




Why make fakes that look off? The photo that appeared on the cover of Life magazine was accepted as genuine by a majority of Americans. What percentage of the population would scrutinise the photograph for signs of forgery? 


In any subsequent discussion on TV years later, there would always be an expert on hand to reassure the public that the pictures were totally legitimate and confirmation bias kicks in. The latest is Hany Farid. 


I find his work on justifying the posture of the Oswald figure in CE-133A very superficial. Even he only claims it is a 'plausible' stance. Yet his studies are reported by mainstream sources as 'proof' the BYPs are real and this work now dominates Google searches. (Noticeably, the poorer attempts CE-133B and C receive comparatively little attention.) In PR/propaganda terms this is a success.


Yet any genuine expert looking at CE-133B would see in seconds that the area behind 'Oswald's' head has been retouched to the extent that a post supporting the stairs is curved and not linear. 


My hunch is that the Paines were involved.


    

lanceman wrote:
Thanks for the link. Wasn’t there a guy named (Ungar?) that had a site with a photographic archive of the JFK assassination? I did a search an nothing came up. But then I’ve noticed in the past year or so, whenever I do a web search, there seem to only be about 5-7 unique hits and the rest just repeat those hits.

lanceman: it's jfkassassinationgallery .com

Lanceman,

you wrote:

There is anthropometric data that gives details on various dimensions of the human body. If I can show quantitatively that, the waist height of the Oswald in the computer model differs from an actual photo of Oswald, it conclusively undermines Farid’s analysis which was given significant attention. I wish I had the software and skill to overlay Farid’s model with the Oswald mugshot.


I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in photography, nor in photogrammetry, but I have extensive experience in film and digital cinema as a cameraman. One simply cannot overlay a mugshot photograph of Oswald over the 3D graphics model from Farid to compare anything. It's impossible. 

There are other ways to show how flawed Farid's study is in my opinion.

Redfern,


Yet any genuine expert looking at CE-133B would see in seconds that the area behind 'Oswald's' head has been retouched to the extent that a post supporting the stairs is curved and not linear. 


Can you point to that anomaly - thanks mate.

The whole area behind the head looks as if it has been retouched.

1 - there is a distinct curve in the pillar

2 - the shadow under the neck and the lighter part at the collar seem artificial.

CastroSimp wrote:

lanceman wrote:
Thanks for the link. Wasn’t there a guy named (Ungar?) that had a site with a photographic archive of the JFK assassination? I did a search an nothing came up. But then I’ve noticed in the past year or so, whenever I do a web search, there seem to only be about 5-7 unique hits and the rest just repeat those hits.

lanceman: it's jfkassassinationgallery .com

Thanks!