REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

BECAUSE JUSTICE IS NEVER TOO LATE

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > JFK > Back Yard Photography

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106



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.



 
Of note is the bag or sack, or "blanket" possibly used to carry the rifle to the location, under the stairs by the post.



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.
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.

Back sports shirt with two white buttons was not on clothing inventory of LHO.
Do the black pants look like dress pants or more like jeans or work pants?


Do you think these are black dress pants?  Do you see a wedding ring in this photo?


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

Cheers, Ed

September 6, 2015 at 8:05 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Ed,

all great points.

I'm going to get a set of these backyard pics for further study. I think the top two (side by side) are curious indeed. Need a clear set to have a closer look. If I didn't know any better I'd say that the shadow from the figure falling across the ground has changed to my eye at least  when it seems no other shadows have moved. At first I thought my eyes were playing tricks, I also had assumed the figure had moved back a step, but then had a closer look at where the head meets the roof of the garage. It alters too. And just to make it interesting take a close look at the decreased angle of view of the lens on #2 its different IMO and its not just the cropping I'm talking of. I don't know whether thats right but it certainly looks to be the case. Maybe I'm pixel peeping to much....

September 6, 2015 at 9:07 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

"decreased angle of view of the lens on #2 its different IMO"

Nope your eyes are correct.
The camera is slightly less tilted in that shot and has changed position minutely.
This was covered in the discussions on EF about these photos with Lamp post Lamykins.
So a tripod was likely not used or if it was it was, it was bumped or moved an inch or twoforwards or backward depending on which photo we are saying is the first and baseline to examine the others.

Yes another set of eyes will be great help Mick!

September 6, 2015 at 9:18 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Of note is the size of LHO in the images.


LHO in these pictures is the same height as the post holding up the stairs or about 5'
Lee's true height is 5'9"

When compared to a probably 6 foot detective, whom is standing closer to the camera, the detective looks huge in comparison to mini-Lee.


September 6, 2015 at 9:19 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

Ed,


Thank you for posting the first verifiable images of "black dog nose man". I do believe this 5'-0" tall version of Lee (or... damn!... is it Harvey!?!! I never can keep them straight!) is the tiny fellow we have been seeing in the vestibule of the TSBD. THIS is the very short Lee!!


Who knew he would be found in the BYPs as well.


Brilliant work, Ed. Black Dog Nose Man can be put to rest.



--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham

 

 

September 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

I've always shied away from the BYP because I suck at photo analysis. But after the questions raised, I took the three pictures cropped them to focus on three the highlighted areas that seem remarkably the same to me. Shadows and position of leaves and branches – nothing seems to change from image to image. Looks pretty static to me. You be the judge.

 



Also, the BYP were said to have been taken on March 31, 1963 (per Walt Brown's Chronology). I looked up the weather conditions for Dallas TX (Love) on March 31, 1963 and I got this:

 

Wind Speed: 17 mph (South)

Max Wind Speed: 22 mph

 

With wind conditions like these at my place, I see vegetation/leaves/braches dancing around, non-stop. I'd expect to see a little more change from picture to picture here.

 

September 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM Flag Quote & Reply

steely dan
Moderator
Posts: 1013

Looks like a single background image with only the figures shadow moving slightly to indicate a small passage of time between "shots".

September 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

It doesn't really matter what any of us think really, when the reality is that Lee cannot be 5 feet tall.

The Backyard Pics are faked because of that. We have a known quantity. I just want to learn a little more about why and how.....

September 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Mick Purdy
Moderator
Posts: 1403

Stan Dane at September 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM

I've always shied away from the BYP because I suck at photo analysis. But after the questions raised, I took the three pictures cropped them to focus on three the highlighted areas that seem remarkably the same to me. Shadows and position of leaves and branches – nothing seems to change from image to image. Looks pretty static to me. You be the judge.

 



Also, the BYP were said to have been taken on March 31, 1963 (per Walt Brown's Chronology). I looked up the weather conditions for Dallas TX (Love) on March 31, 1963 and I got this:

 

Wind Speed: 17 mph (South)

Max Wind Speed: 22 mph

 

With wind conditions like these at my place, I see vegetation/leaves/braches dancing around, non-stop. I'd expect to see a little more change from picture to picture here.

 

The more I look at these pics you've done Stan the more I'm inclined to say they're fake. We know Lee was not 5 feet tall but seriously theres more at issue here...someone went to a lot of trouble to implicate Lee with the manipulation of his image and the props we see in these photos.




September 6, 2015 at 4:23 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

Awesome work Terry, Stan and Mick!

Terry made me fall out the chair again...   BDNM! Hahaha

September 7, 2015 at 12:52 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

steely dan at September 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Looks like a single background image with only the figures shadow moving slightly to indicate a small passage of time between "shots".

Thanks Steely.
This is the single worst piece of evidence yet it was waved in the American publics face.

Folks like Hany Farid will only examine one photo and claim no funny business...Farid is a tool of the FBI.
Farid would dare not compare the three photos together, as Stan has, as it would show he is full of shit.

I really dislike Farid because he is a  professor and a scientist and knows better.
He must have tenure or else he'd be fired.  Although he is a computer software scientist and has zero cred in photo analysis except pixel metrics.

Yet the BYPs did not have pixels. They had silver grains in emulsion. Apples and Oranges.

"Farid's counting on computer processed pixel re-transformations of old (presumed) silver iodide films today to affirm fakeness is akin to me looking at old home movies on dvd format and trying to ascertain where the exact point of editing occurred. Ain't gonna happen.

As it turns out, on March 31, 1963 (the documented date from Warren Commission files for the backyard photo), one can compute (using a specialized computer program) the maximum solar altitude on the local meridian at noon (for lat. 32 deg 47’ 09” for Dallas, TX) as 57.o deg.

This means that if the photo is legit, and conforms to the correct solar meridian crossing on that date, Oswald’s shadow (given his recorded height on his draft card of 5' 9" or 1.74m) can be no longer than 1.12m (3.7'), which sets limits on how far he can be located from the picket fence. My own computer software program that transforms a 2D perspective into a 3D one to obtain projected shadow lengths, shows that the actual length of shadow was more like 2.1 m (6.9'). This shows that at least two of the photos could not have been taken on the same day, if taken at all. Indeed, the massive discrepancy shows fakery ....but which Farid's seemingly superb software can't catch."
~Philip Stahl

First of all he'd have to have had the original photo of Oswald, not a copy, which I doubt very much he had, since the Feds confiscated it and only allowed reprints. Secondly, in those old photos there were no pixels to measure since all photos of that period were taken with film type cameras and no pixels were on them to measure. The photos looked the same as a painted picture, smooth and even "

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html


Now go wipe you Hany Mr. Farid and run along to the FBI for some more funding.


Cheers ROKCERS!

September 7, 2015 at 1:54 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Stan Dane
Moderator
Posts: 1239

September 7, 2015 at 2:58 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Ed Ledoux
Moderator
Posts: 1106

:lol: your killing me Stan!!

September 7, 2015 at 4:19 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Mini-Me eh Mini-Lee:P

--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

 


September 7, 2015 at 5:07 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Barto
Moderator
Posts: 1915

Has anyone ever measured that wooden post next to LHO?

--

_________________________________________________________________________________

Prayer Man The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0B8JhOe3KU

Prayer Man website: http://www.prayer-man.com/

Prayer Man on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PMisLeeOswald

 


September 7, 2015 at 9:53 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

Barto at September 7, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Has anyone ever measured that wooden post next to LHO?

Looking at the photograph here, it looks pretty low/short...


http://www.onthisveryspot.com/pics/spot_1684_761.jpg


September 7, 2015 at 11:05 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Smee
Member
Posts: 113

...then again...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Smee at September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM

...then again...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


Just a simple measurement from my computer screen shows the overall width of the two 2x4's that are ganged together to form the post itself at 3/8". The height of the post measures 8 1/4" on my computer screen. Without accounting for foreshortening in the horizontal (which there is some since we can see the two faces of the post, but accounting for it would simply make this post calculation shorter since there can only be a slight foreshortening in the vertical, if any) Divide height by width (8 1/4" by 3/8") we get 22 width units for the height of the post. Multiply 22 time 3" (two 2x4's put together is 3" since a 2x4 is 1 1/2" thick) and we get 5'-6" for the post height. I'm sure this is very close and slightly taller than it really is because of the width foreshortening.

September 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Jake
Moderator
Posts: 402

Jake at September 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM

Smee at September 7, 2015 at 11:09 AM

...then again...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/full-length-portrait-of-john-cappel-taken-to-recreate-a-news-photo/171684763


Just a simple measurement from my computer screen shows the overall width of the two 2x4's that are ganged together to form the post itself at 3/8". The height of the post measures 8 1/4" on my computer screen. Without accounting for foreshortening in the horizontal (which there is some since we can see the two faces of the post, but accounting for it would simply make this post calculation shorter since there can only be a slight foreshortening in the vertical, if any) Divide height by width (8 1/4" by 3/8") we get 22 width units for the height of the post. Multiply 22 time 3" (two 2x4's put together is 3" since a 2x4 is 1 1/2" thick) and we get 5'-6" for the post height. I'm sure this is very close and slightly taller than it really is because of the width foreshortening.

Actually, if I add a mere 1/32" to the 3/8" width calculation shown above, it shortens the post to 5'-0", so I have to say the foreshortening has a more dramatic effect than I thought. This also brings the 3/8" measurement into closer scrutiny, but with this we are on a track with the order of magnitude of the height of the post being around 5' to 5'-6".

September 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Terry Martin
Moderator
Posts: 1143

One thing I was looking at was comparing the BYPs to the image of the site four years later (thanks, Smee!)


I wondered what the discoloration lines on the ground were and the newly posted image made it clear: electrical lines running overhead.



On the left and right are the BYP images from the start of the thread (the third image doesn't show the feet well enough) and the central image is the one taken March 30, 1967.


On the left image the three shadows of the wires lay beyond the pale thing on the ground (whatever it is) and the right hand image shows the first line is now well beyond the pale spot. By my estimation of the travel rate of such shadows, it appears there is a fifteen to twenty minute passage of time from the first to the second.


Now, what's really odd about this passage of time is that it means the Sun was traveling from behind the photographer to a position more over the head of the person being photographed. The weird thing about this is that the shadow of the figure holding the weapons does not fall onto the base of the fence in the left hand photo (just like in the central frame) but in the right hand frame, the shadow falls on the fence.


This latter fact means the Sun was traveling in the opposite direction than the other shadow would indicate. If Lee's shadow has shifted toward the fence, shouldn't the shadow of the lines overhead also have shifted in that direction?


Unless my grasp of spatial mechanics is twisted around backward...



--

"If God had intended for Man to do anything but copulate, He would have given us brains." - - - Ignatz Verbotham

 

 

September 7, 2015 at 12:17 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.