REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Thanks Barto!
New York Herald Tribune should be asked about that photo. 

The head is too big for the body, rifle is way too long, pistol handle is way too thin, and lolly pop guild wants paid for their stand-ins work.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/286297188/Oswald-3D-Modeling-Study
Its interesting when you read through the 3D study by Srivamshi Pittala, Emily Whiting, Hany Farid from Dartmouth and how they skirt the size of the figure. They use 1.02 meter as the rifle length and give a measurement of the pistol but skirt the size of the figure based on that 1.02 meter rifle.
Had they been honest they would not have used some metric of percentages of average body proportions
They skirt the issue of height again by only comparing the model shadow to the pictures shadow.
They use body segments but show no basis for the origin of the body which has these segments.
They say this:

"We start witha 3-D articulated human body of a genericmale (www.makehuman.org) of the same height(1.75m) as Oswald (States, 1964)"
but that starting is of a 5' 7" male.

Their image of a small headed figure compared to Oswalds obvious added head

"Although a generic 3-D head would havesufficed for our stability analysis, we employeda custom-built 3-D model generated from pho-tographs of Oswald (Farid, 2009a)"

I took Oswald head and placed it over Farid head and it covers it easily as it is larger. It also looks silly on the tiny body. The big Oswald head threw off their stability study if adjusted for shadow. IOW if shifted the big head caused instability, So Farid faked a smaller head!





Rifle looks huge in tiny mans hands!!!!



When you work out the proportions its a 4.73' man.
And they say the shadow matches, so must be a shadow for a mini Oswald  and not a 5'9" individual.

My study of their study shows a lack of basic foundation.
"... and the length of the rifle in Oswald’s hands is consistent with the length of this type of rifle."
This is a nonsense statement used to confuse the lack of basic foundation. Rifle is either 40.1" or 45.92"
If it is consistent then is it consistent with Oswald? NO!!
And they skirt the issue of exactly the height of the subject yet give percentages of body segments again from the pictures porportions avoiding any measurment except segments which are not equatable and measurable to the whole. IOW you can't add up their body segments as they are using the argument of balance and stabilitiy of the subject using vector analysis and a self cancelling set of values for inertia of each body segment. Sure, each part of my body always goes equally in each direction when I'm say,,,leaning, or holding a rifle.
The whole study is a whimsical look at "Can a little person hold a huge rifle and hold his balance" answer yes.

A brief mention of shadows are touched on but no stock should be placed in the single photo shadow analysis.
Farid's got a lot of explaining to do to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees and Chancellors Office.
Advertising bad science and calling it higher education is comical.
Besides the fact it should be a 36" 5 1/2 pound Carcano model M91 TS rifle is so far beyond them it makes one wonder if they are studying the same case?

Conclusion: Farid and co. should be censored. Their "paper" removed till it is reviewed for complete objectivity and soundness of concept.

I agree, Ed. But the media will STILL use the paper to prove the authenticity of the BYP's.

You know how it goes...

Terry Martin at December 16, 2015 at 5:54 AM

I agree, Ed. But the media will STILL use the paper to prove the authenticity of the BYP's.

You know how it goes...

Agreed Terry

Great work, Ed! You should post that under his youtube videos. 

Ed Ledoux at December 16, 2015 at 4:56 AM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/286297188/Oswald-3D-Modeling-Study
Its interesting when you read through the 3D study by Srivamshi Pittala, Emily Whiting, Hany Farid from Dartmouth and how they skirt the size of the figure. They use 1.02 meter as the rifle length and give a measurement of the pistol but skirt the size of the figure based on that 1.02 meter rifle.
Had they been honest they would not have used some metric of percentages of average body proportions
They skirt the issue of height again by only comparing the model shadow to the pictures shadow.
They use body segments but show no basis for the origin of the body which has these segments.
They say this:

"We start witha 3-D articulated human body of a genericmale (www.makehuman.org) of the same height(1.75m) as Oswald (States, 1964)"
but that starting is of a 5' 7" male.

Their image of a small headed figure compared to Oswalds obvious added head

"Although a generic 3-D head would havesufficed for our stability analysis, we employeda custom-built 3-D model generated from pho-tographs of Oswald (Farid, 2009a)"

I took Oswald head and placed it over Farid head and it covers it easily as it is larger. It also looks silly on the tiny body. The big Oswald head threw off their stability study if adjusted for shadow. IOW if shifted the big head caused instability, So Farid faked a smaller head!





Rifle looks huge in tiny mans hands!!!!



When you work out the proportions its a 4.73' man.
And they say the shadow matches, so must be a shadow for a mini Oswald  and not a 5'9" individual.

My study of their study shows a lack of basic foundation.
"... and the length of the rifle in Oswald’s hands is consistent with the length of this type of rifle."
This is a nonsense statement used to confuse the lack of basic foundation. Rifle is either 40.1" or 45.92"
If it is consistent then is it consistent with Oswald? NO!!
And they skirt the issue of exactly the height of the subject yet give percentages of body segments again from the pictures porportions avoiding any measurment except segments which are not equatable and measurable to the whole. IOW you can't add up their body segments as they are using the argument of balance and stabilitiy of the subject using vector analysis and a self cancelling set of values for inertia of each body segment. Sure, each part of my body always goes equally in each direction when I'm say,,,leaning, or holding a rifle.
The whole study is a whimsical look at "Can a little person hold a huge rifle and hold his balance" answer yes.

A brief mention of shadows are touched on but no stock should be placed in the single photo shadow analysis.
Farid's got a lot of explaining to do to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees and Chancellors Office.
Advertising bad science and calling it higher education is comical.
Besides the fact it should be a 36" 5 1/2 pound Carcano model M91 TS rifle is so far beyond them it makes one wonder if they are studying the same case?

Conclusion: Farid and co. should be censored. Their "paper" removed till it is reviewed for complete objectivity and soundness of concept.

Ed,

You done good!

This should be officially recognized along with Terry's power cable shadow. Include Gregs background work on the photo's provernance too and together it smashes the notion that the pics are authentic.

I ain't holding my breath.

Mick Purdy at September 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM

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.....

Lee isn't 5 feet tall, and he sure isn't standing in this yard.

But say a youth ordered a rifle, mail order, has it come to his parents PO box, kid has a key and checks mail after school, rifle arrives, slip for package goes into PO box, kid checks box, takes slip up to counter,_____________________________ ......   Fill in what happens next.

Then a picture set is made.
Is this pictures of a youth holding the magazines he 'ordered' his pistol and rifle from?
Was this to be used by congressional committee to halt mail order weapons?
Did Lee take the pictures of the youth holding these items?
Does not seem like Lee would do that, unless to help keep kids off carcanos.

Was this even the same rifle and pistol in evidence? Sling was rope then a leather strap, rifle length changes, pistol does not appear to have same grip shape.
Backyard photos are exculpatory in the case for Oswald holding the rifle/pistol/papers associated with an assassination. Just holding a similar rifle is in of itself not a crime. Yet LIFE (whom I say has the other negative) uses it as a hit piece on Oswald.

Papers give it away too as you cant hide the Sportsmen type magazines with a too small Worker or Militant.
So the Worker and Militant were adjusted to fit over the larger media. Thus leaving a noticable difference between fictional and factual.

The power lines shadows movements. Belie the fake and how physics work

The stand-ins height.

the stair shadows and stairs appear exactly the same, yet camera and sun movements.

And so many more easily spotted and proven cases for Back Yard Photo Fakery.

All those whom think these are real home photos taken by Marina have not been paying attention the last 52 years.

Nice pics!
Rope sling and all the riifle differences are there.
Lee's watch was busted and Marina gave him a bracelet when they moved from Elsbeth.
Size of this mini Lee is hilarious!
I wonder whom left prints on these negs.  Touch DNA testing anyone?

These are from the North Texas Uni

Background straightened.  Note the strange angle Oswald is standing.

Thank you Ray!
What program did you use to straighten background?

Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.

Ed Ledoux at January 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM

Thank you Ray!
What program did you use to straighten background?

Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.

Ed, I originally used Gimp to correct the perspective as here.

The photo I posted yesterday  was just rotated by a couple of degrees, again in GIMP,to straighten the verticals out.  Both photos show that Oswald was standing at an impossible angle. IMO

Good to know!
Thanx Ray.

Of course Hany Farid would argue some nonsense computer generated figure holding a larger heavier rifle could just balance ,,, if his left sock was wet... bollocks. Ray is right, the lil guy would probably tip over backwards if holding a 36" Carcano.

Ray Mitcham at January 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM

Ed Ledoux at January 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM

Thank you Ray!
What program did you use to straighten background?

Strange angle was the gist of Farid's failed study.
He used body segment weights, a vector analysis and overweight wrong sized weapon for his computer model for it to be able to stand up.
He had to fudge the head size porportion by going off segments and generalized males body segment weights, etc. so not true to this picture. The head was a standard size model or some such excuse, and when Oswald's head is seen on the body he used, the body appears so tiny as to make one question if Farid has working vision.

All this goes back to those like Craig Lampson who support the distorted reality that this is an true and actual picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a 36" rifle ordered from Kleins?
Why would anyone support this is a picture of Oswald?
Took ROKC about a few minutes to destroy this as anything but proof Oswald was framed!
The only answer can be no it is not a true photographic representation of Oswald holding a specific Carcano.

It is a fact that this was used by the Dallas Police with aide from the Paine's to incriminate Lee Oswald.
It is now a fact that Ruth is alive, this photo was found at her house in her control, and has been shown to be a fake image used by DPD to support case that Oswald had rifle and pistol used for murder of JD Tippit and John F. Kennedy, it's been shown that Lee was framed by the DPD with the help of the Paine's. When does this woman get a summons? What more did she have to do? Directly involved in the location of Lee's employment.
Happens to pick up Marina, take her out, etc. on date of weapons arrival. (marked calendar knows when ordered)
Keeps other job calls from Lee's attention. Stumbles on dates Oswald came over. (has calendar with her)
Throws away "Oswald's" mail, Militant and Worker. Minox mix ups in the garage, so on .....

This, the bus ticket/cab non-trip, and the Prayer Man evidence alone should cause a re-examination of the evidence by any authority worth its stripes.

Ed, I originally used Gimp to correct the perspective as here.

The photo I posted yesterday  was just rotated by a couple of degrees, again in GIMP,to straighten the verticals out.  Both photos show that Oswald was standing at an impossible angle. IMO

Does this assume that the camera that took the photograph in the first place was held perfectly level?

Could be for several different reasons, Smee. The print could have been made by tilting the printing table, whilst printing.or the camera could have been tilted slightly.

Whichever it is, the stance doesn't appear  to be tenable.

Jake at September 7, 2015 at 12:57 PM

Terry Martin at September 7, 2015 at 12:17 PM

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...

I think you're right about the contradictory advancement of the shadows. All suns rays are parallel, not like from a point source (light bulb). If his shadow gets longer toward the back of the yard, then the wires move toward the back of the yard also, not the other way. The question becomes is his shadow shorter (consistent with the wires moving toward the front of the yard) but now he's standing further toward the back of the yard so that his shadow falls upon the base of the fence anyway. Upon studying the feet realtive to the post and the "pale thing" I think the answer to that question is definitely no.

What's happening in Ozzie's shadow in the right side of the head/neck/shoulder area?  Something lying on the ground? Notibly absent in the center/recreation photo.

I have not listened to it yet but I just came across this and thought I'd plaster it in this post

1978 HSCA Testimony of Sgt.Cecil Kirk ~ Director, Mobile Crime Laboratory, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9gvqfcjgg

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk.htm

Another version from JFK.hood.edu

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/Pictures-Maps/Item%2002.pdf