JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Izraul Hidashi on March 05, 2020, 10:13:55 PM

Title: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 05, 2020, 10:13:55 PM

I know there are plenty of people who believe these photos to be genuine, but I ran them thru forensic software which revealed some oddities.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but personally, I think they're bogus. It's worth mentioning that the anomalies didn't show until I restored color to the photos. It's easy to see that originals were in fact color. I think they were intentionally converted to black n white in order to hide the anomalies, which is why people who study the black n white versions believe they're genuine. But add color, and it stands out like a sore thumb.

But I'll let others be their own judge.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/XbMNKvJquYWoTBod6 

Here's a blown up version. There's something off about that left arm too, if you ask me.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QQxQBdHP252jAVqH7

I know one of these backyard photos was found among Roscoe Whites personal belongings. And from what I understand, he played around with photo manipulation techniques.

Another thing I noticed about this image is that the rifle in this photo is not the same one found on the 6th floor. Compare the shoulder straps for the 2 rifles and you'll see what I mean.
 

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2020, 10:30:10 PM

Can you be more specific about what the "oddities" are?  What exactly does the "forensic software" do?

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 06, 2020, 12:12:15 AM

Quote from: John Iacoletti on March 05, 2020, 10:30:10 PM

Can you be more specific about what the "oddities" are?  What exactly does the "forensic software" do?

No problem. If you look at the colored version, you can see the drastic difference between the face and the the rest of the photo, color wise. If you look closer you can actually see the outline of the face, which to me looks to have been a cut n paste job.

So I ran it through forensic software with an Error Level Analysis (ELA) feature.

What ELA does is pin point segments that contain different compression levels to reveal a higher error level potential than the rest of an image based on contrast. An altered image using ELA will be fairly uniform in contrast throughout. If you're evaluating skin, any edge that has skin next to black/dark pixels will reveal a higher error level potential. All similar edges should be the same brightness in an ELA image.

If you look at the ELA imaging results here, you can see the highest error levels are around the face. You can also see a black line that separates the head from the body. That's the skin next to darker pixels I was talking about, which is indicative of an alteration. When a photo is converter to black & white, it's much harder to detect the difference in compression ratios of an altered image with the ELA imaging analysis. You'd have to use another means.

If you run ELA on an unaltered color photo, the compression should be uniform. But altered images are unlikely to have the same characteristics. For example, if you add an object from one source, such as a face from another photo, and paste onto a body in another photo, the characteristics won't match due to the millions of tiny differences within the pixels themselves, such as lighting, contrast, exposure, noise, etc.

So the ELA focuses on compression to detect those differences. The best example can be seen in the last square (the blue image). If the photo was unaltered, that blue filter would be uniform throughout. But it's not. And the only place it's drastically different happens to be in the facial area. Now if there were any questions as to the authenticity concerning this photo, where would you expect likely alterations be? The facial area.

So what is the chance that the higher error levels around the face are indicative of an alteration? But even without all the compression differences, the black line separating the head from the body is still an abnormal anomaly on its own. There's no reason for a break to exist between the head and body. Whether or not it's the real head of that body doesn't matter, because at some point it seems to have been altered for that anomaly to occur.

I find similar anomalies in Mortgage documents, where banks or trustees might copy & paste signatures. You'd be amazed how many Mortgage documents are altered. Your Deed probably isn't the original you signed at closing. If you examine all your signatures up close you'll find at least 1 with the some type of anomaly. Most times you won't even see them with the naked eye.

Here's an example of a Deed I examined with an unnatural break between the signature line and signature.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/URfySptmKzzwYaLs8   

That space wouldn't be there if that signature were genuine. But it was copied and pasted from somewhere else. It couldn't be seen with the naked eye but luckily we caught it or the person would have lost their home to fraudulent foreclosure.


Anyway, that's the best I can explain it. Hope it helps.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 09, 2020, 06:18:07 PM

Quote from: Jerry Organ on March 06, 2020, 12:53:21 AM

(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-2008x2104.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Uncolorized Photo of CE 133-B

(https://images2.imgbox.com/93/41/1bXdBIVT_o.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) ELA Applied

Yes. Exactly. Notice the difference between the black n white image analysis, as opposed to the color? That's the difference. But even in the black n white, you can see the difference between the face and rest of the photo. It just doesn't sit right.  Also notice the left arm. That shadow in the corner, by the elbow, it shouldn't be there.

In fact, the whole arm just looks off. Even the watch, or shadow of a watch, or whatever that's supposed to be.

And here's the funny thing about the ELA you applied to the black n white. ELA is really for color, because it analyzes compression ratio, but if you look closely at the ELA image, you can still see the black line separating the face from the body right at the throat.

Also notice how the shoulders look. How far they are from his head. And his neck looks bigger than everything else. Like he's E.T. or something.

Thanks for posting that Jerry. For some reason my photos don't show up when I use the image code. It just shows a broken photo icon.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 11, 2020, 11:38:48 PM

Not the same rifles ...

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8

The rifle in the backyard photo has a light colored shoulder strap and is one solid piece without a shoulder pad.

The 6th floor rifle has a darker strap and is 2 pieces connected by a shoulder pad. Just saying. Lots of fuckery for sure.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 12, 2020, 03:38:32 PM

It certainly hasn't been proven to be the same rifle.  However, wouldn't it be rather easy to change the strap?

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 12, 2020, 05:20:28 PM

Quote from: Izraul Hidashi on March 11, 2020, 11:38:48 PM

Not the same rifles ...

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AgJEf7k2GuP1tySr8

The rifle in the backyard photo has a light colored shoulder strap and is one solid piece without a shoulder pad.

The 6th floor rifle has a darker strap and is 2 pieces connected by a shoulder pad. Just saying. Lots of fuckery for sure.

Question: Isn't it more likely that Oswald just changed straps?

A panel of photographic experts assembled by the HSCA examined the original photos and one of the negatives using microscopic and microscopic chemical techniques; procedures that I can barely understand (or think I do). It entailed, among other things, examining the individual chemical silver grains on the originals. Again, individual grains on the originals or what they called photochemical analysis. That's something that can't be done on copies. To repeat: these were the originals and not pixelated copies or copies of copies (third, fourth, fifth generations?) on the internet.

They concluded that the photos were authentic and had not been altered.  Other experts, using modern techniques, conclude the same. The HSCA panel also concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle that was recovered from the sniper's next/sixth floor window.

Now of course experts can be wrong. But one has to show where their analysis of the originals - of their detailed microscopic analysis - was wrong. What did they miss?

I've never seen any conspiracy advocate point out where their analysis was wrong. Maybe some have; I have not seen it. But just denying their conclusions is not an answer.

In any case, do you think that your study of copies (what generation are you using?) is useful at all? Sure, if you're just fooling around, just engage in "hobbyist" fun, it's not serious. But this is, frankly, just worthless as any serious look into the authenticity of the photographs.

The HSCA report is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 12, 2020, 05:51:38 PM

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on March 12, 2020, 05:20:28 PM

The HSCA panel also concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle that was recovered from the sniper's next/sixth floor window.

Not for any good reason.

Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Walton on March 13, 2020, 10:19:46 PM

Oswald denied he was in those photos. He got it right - they pasted his face on someone else - and said he'd show how it was done. That, and the weird left side of his neck where the shading of it blends in with the fence background, is good enough for me.

If you stare at the photo long enough, you can see where the outline of the paste job is of his head.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve Barber on March 16, 2020, 02:24:25 AM

 Nonsense.  Marina Oswald took the pictures.  She said this herself.  Why do you people continually bring up these old conspiracy theories  that were laid to rest years ago.  So Oswald said his face was pasted onto someone elses body. He lied, like he lied about everything else. 

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Walton on March 16, 2020, 04:07:29 PM

It would help you [but probably not] to know that there have been many, many cases where the official story of the case has been wrong or incorrect, or swept under the rug to reach a foregone conclusion. One very good example is the Ramsey case. Despite all evidence that there was no intruder in the family house and it was an inside job, the family, with the help of hiring a bevy of lawyers, was able to twist and turn the story to push the intruder story. And of course the gullible media to this day has lapped it up.

There are too many inconsistencies and implausibilities in the Kennedy case to accept the official story no questions asked. Marina Oswald was immediately sequestered by police and the FBI and coached months later about what to say. There are detailed articles about this out there, so look it up. The finding of the BYP are odd as well. Again, there are plenty of good articles out there about that.

Despite not recording a single interview with LHO during that weekend, he said what he said. The photos were not of him, someone pasted his face on another's body and he could show how it's done. And he had a right to present that during his day in court but sadly he never got that chance.

As for the experts, there are plenty of "experts" out there that do all kinds of "scientific" measures but in the final analysis can and will come to a foregone conclusion. Just because they use some million-dollar piece of machinery to analyze them does not mean they're always right. This applies to the experts on the other side of the fence. Again, like the Ramsey case, this happened with the RN's writing analysis. The kicker, for me, for that case was to see the mother actually sit during a recorded deposition and repeatedly deny over and over again examples of her own handwriting.

Oswald didn't lie about everything. He blurted out that he lived in Russia (true) and he also blurted out that he was a patsy (also true). He was no dummy and knew as events unfolded throughout the weekend what was shaping up for him.

It is amazing how you people think you can just make evidence disappear. Just deny things, refute empirical and technical evidence - without showing where it's wrong - and just ignore it.

Actually, Steve, it's the other way around. It's people like you who most probably don't like the Kennedys and, therefore, you're biased about the case because you simply cannot see beyond the official story.

Here is one of my favorite photos from the case. What you're seeing here is not Bob Groden and Dave Lifton in Dealey Plaza goofing around. What you're seeing are FBI officials conducting their official investigation of the case by recreating the shots. Let's forget for a moment, which people like you ALWAYS bring up when this photo is shown, that the car is not the same. Let's forget, too, that the Kennedy stand in may be too high or the Connolly guy may be too low. These don't matter at all here.

What matters is this - the FBI guys have 100% access to the autopsy record and photos. This is mere months after 11/22. So basing their work on this official record, they say, "OK, let's put a sticker on the Kennedy guy based on the bullet that hit him in the back." And because they knew that based on the official record, there was NO bullet of entry or exit in that rear sticker ABOVE the back wound. Therefore, that sticker on the rear neck is where the THROAT wound is. In other words, the wound that Kennedy in the front in his throat.

So now thy're like, "Great! But wait a minute. How in the xxxx could this lower sticker exit UPWARD and out of the front in the throat area when the shot is coming DOWNWARD?!"

So Steve, try to explain that. But you see, Steve, you won't so, therefore, you'll just ignore it. And the reason why you'll ignore it is simply because you can't logically and plausibly explain how that could physically happen.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2020, 04:22:05 AM

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on March 16, 2020, 01:00:51 PM

It is amazing how you people think you can just make evidence disappear.

It is amazing how you people think that something like the backyard photos constitutes evidence for who killed JFK.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Walton on March 17, 2020, 12:44:04 PM

What's the problem? The bullet enters at the C7 level and exits at the T1 level. I don't see a conflict in the photos, other than they're taken from different camera angles and aren't directly comparable as you try to present.

Sure, Jerry, sure. And need I remind you that there was NO termination hole on the other side of his body? In other words, Humes himself stuck either a probe or finger in that rear back wound and found NO exit.

Uh, huh. Right, Jerry, right.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Walton on March 17, 2020, 07:04:56 PM

No, Jerry. Both bullet holes were clearly defined. A bullet traveling at that speed and to make such a defined hole would have made a clear path. The problem with your argument, Jerry, is you keep taking this testimony verbatim. For example, you said that patch on the neck because according to the testimony, it came in and out at a certain spinal #. But you still don't explain how a bullet traveling downward from roughly 90 feet in the air will hit a person's back and then exit ABOVE in the frontal neck area - which is where the upper white patch is located in my image, Jerry.

And now you're doing it again, Jerry, using the panel as they fumble around with "it could have been because of rigor..." or whatever.

Here's the same reenactment, Jerry. You can see the back patch and this is from the TSBD. There's no way a bullet traveling that fast and from that high up would exit ABOVE where it came in.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4A8PwaFEtq8/Wi197pas0wI/AAAAAAAAE-Y/oIRwr-vTckIAnuzuoujevx_zlwqdat-3wCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/FBI%2Breenactment%2Bfrom%2Brear%2Bphoto.jpg)

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 18, 2020, 02:02:28 PM

Is the theory that before the assassination - at some time on some occasion and in some way - the conspirators who framed Oswald for the shooting obtained Oswald's rifle, his camera, access to the backyard at the Neely Street residence, and copies of the two radical publications that are seen in the photo?

Then these unnamed conspirators took a photo. Actually several. They then pasted a - obvious to conspiracy believers but not photographic experts - head shot of Oswald onto the staged photos.

Then they made three - not one, mind you - but three faked/staged photos and planted them. Including a negative.

Moreover, they got the DeMohrsenschildts to lie about being given one of the photos by the Oswalds. And, of course, got Marina to lie about taking them. But there's one more, the handwriting on the back of their photo given to the DeMohrenschildts was identified as belonging to Lee Oswald. But that is wrong too.

And they were so good at this fakery that photographic experts using microscopic analysis of the originals and the negative (matching it to the camera) were unable to discover this fakery. Even modern analysis, some 50 years later, using digital techniques (see for example Harry Farid and his team's work on this) is unable to discover these alterations.

This is simply not believable. Or doable. Not to me.

This farfetched explanation is a classic example of how the conspiracy believers believe literally anything and everything in order to make their conspiracy work. It is simply impossible to do all of the above. But never mind, "they" just did and, hey lone assassin fools, prove "they" didn't.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 18, 2020, 09:11:31 PM

Marina didn't say she took 3 photos.

It's unnecessary to posit photo alteration anyway, since the photos tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2020, 09:32:05 PM

The BY scene only proves that some guy was photographed enacting out some sort of machismo deal. That's it.

But CTers seem to want to infer that others think it proves that this guy was guy who shot the guy. Yo. Not on my watch. I need a lot more faked, planted and altered evidence to arrive at which guy was the guy who shot the guy.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 20, 2020, 07:21:04 PM

Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2020, 09:32:05 PM

The BY scene only proves that some guy was photographed enacting out some sort of machismo deal. That's it.

But CTers seem to want to infer that others think it proves that this guy was guy who shot the guy. Yo. Not on my watch. I need a lot more faked, planted and altered evidence to arrive at which guy was the guy who shot the guy.

I think the photos indicate something more such as he wasn't pretending to hold radical views as cover work for US intelligence/CIA/FBI or whoever. After all those were Marxist anti-US publications he was holding up and not Time and Newsweek. This was more of a political pose than a machismo one. Marina said that after developing the photos that he gave one copy to her to save for their baby girl. Swell, what daughter wouldn't want a photo of their dad in that outfit? In any case, the significance of these photos re Oswald the person is another question for another day.

The question here is whether they're authentic or not. I think the evidence is overwhelming that they are.

A conclusion for me in this is that it shows the peculiar thinking of the conspiracy believers who seemingly think all of this is faked or staged to help frame Oswald. Right, they didn't manufacture one photo they created three. Why on Earth would you create three of these? Isn't one enough?

Too many conspiracy believers think the "conspirators"  had unlimited powers and resources and could just alter this and fake that and cover it all up for half a century. Sorry, that's not a world I think exists.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 21, 2020, 04:27:59 PM

Quote from: Jerry Organ on March 21, 2020, 03:36:19 PM

Two ("B" and "C") have less resolution than "A". Turns out only in "A" was the subject within the camera's set focus plane and, being closer in space to the film plane than "B" and "C", had more resolution and so presented more detail.

LNers never went on for decades about the CAP Picnic Photo being a fake. LNers respect evidence, while being able to spot CT-generated fake evidence -- like Doorman and Zapruder film alteration -- a mile away.

(https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/art/ferriebig.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, NOVA 1993 ( Link (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/ferrie.html) )

Jerry, but isn't the evidence pretty strong that these were, indeed, three separate photos? And, from that, the HSCA photographic experts said that the photos (A and B specifically) allowed them to employ "stereoscopic techniques" that enabled a three dimensional analysis. Any alterations (in either photo) could not escape detection because the alterations would appear to be either behind or in front of the three dimensional image.

I don't know whether this technique was available in 1963 (I would guess so but that's a guess) and thus the alleged fakers of these photos knew this. But it seems to me that the point is that anyone faking photos would not be able to predict whether future advances in photographic analysis - digital imaging for example - would expose their acts.

This is framing a person for the assassination of the president not for robbing a convenience store. The evidence used would be studied and studied and studied for generations. Any fakery, over that time, would emerge. And the framers/conspirators could not be confident that it wouldn't.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 29, 2020, 04:28:20 AM

If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 06, 2020, 04:47:23 AM

Quote from: Jack Trojan on March 29, 2020, 04:28:20 AM

If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?

Quote

Mr. McDONALD. Please tell us what happened? This was at the Neely Street address.
What happened on this occasion when Lee asked you to take those photographs?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, first of all, I refused to take picture because I did not know how to operate camera, and he told me, he insist that I will take it, and he said he will show me how, if I just push the button. So I took one picture, I think, and maybe he changed the pose, I don't recall. Maybe I took two pictures, but I was very annoyed by all the incidents.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscamar1.htm
...................................

Quote

Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

DEPOSITIONS OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER
Staff Report of the
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
Ninety-fifth Congress
Second Session
March 1979

Quote

Q. To your knowledge, did he own-will, did he own a camera?
A. I really don't remember.
Q. Did he own any kind of--
A. I remember in Russia, he took pictures. It was our camera or somebody's camera but I know he was taking pictures. I do believe it was our camera because he was carrying it with him.
Q. When you lived in Texas did he own a camera?
A. I don't recall but, according to some pictures we had he might have because he had some pictures that were taken recently, I mean during our living there. I do believe he probably had. But I would not recognize the camera. If somebody said was that yours, I would not claim it.
Q. Did he ever to your knowledge have any photography equipment, like developing or other photography equipment?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember anything?
A. I don't remember.
.................................................................................
Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?
A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.
Q. So he have you back the camera?
A. For the second time; yes.

So after some needling and prompting...Marina "admitted"? that she took two pictures.
With a twin lens reflex...you do not hold the camera up to your eye!

Quote

Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--
A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?
A. Yes.

So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
If that was true, then it would have been impossible to have framed a second picture just exactly like the first one was...yet it 'supposedly' happened.
If it was on a tripod..it would have been likely.
I am not interested in what people speculated.
I certainly am! Who was around to state that "the weather was wrong"?
This whole yarn is wrong !!!!! What about the third picture framed just exactly so?
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1DXEjIXXXXXbQXXXXq6xXFXXXZ/Hot-Sale-SJ-DIY-Funny-Assemble-Plastic-Science-Toy-Retro-Recesky-Twin-Lens-Reflex-Lomo-Camera.jpg)
 

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Louis Earl on June 04, 2020, 05:04:48 PM

My concern with the BY photos has never been bottomed on what is depicted in the photos.  My concern is that they are "too perfect."  Really?  We have photos of the accused assassin holding the very rifle and the pistol in his hands in broad daylight in his easily identifiable back yard? 

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Walton on June 05, 2020, 05:54:28 PM

Louis, I'm not sure what your line of thought is. Yes, that was the whole point of the photos - to show an alleged assassin holding guns up and Marxist literature. If we're to believe Marina, she was in a rush and didn't really care about taking these photos as she had other things to "attend" to. As Jerry said, all photos look almost as if they were taken on a tripod, perfectly framed with very little difference in the overall layout.

It's important, too, to take Oswald at his word. He did say that the photos were fake, that he could show how they were fake, and he never got an opportunity to show this. His lawyer never got that chance too because he was refused representation even after his death. Even Jeffrey Epstein has been given the benefit of the doubt upon his own death.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Louis Earl on June 06, 2020, 08:19:31 PM

The existence of photos that show "LHO" standing in the easily confirmed location of a former residence, holding Commie literature and "the" rifle and "the" pistol is a little too pat for me.  That fact alone for me raises suspicion as to the legitimacy of the photos.

How about a nice 8mm home movie of him putting the rifle inside the paper bag for carrying it into the TSBD?  That would really help the prosecution's case. 

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Rick Plant on March 11, 2021, 06:13:43 AM

I have to disagree with your analysis.

A Dartmouth study a few years ago, confirmed the Oswald backyard photos were indeed authentic using high tech 3-D models and new digital image forensics. No evidence of forgery or tampering was detected in any of Oswald's photos.

Back then it was more difficult to forge a photo trying to appear authentic. With digital forensic analysis able to detect tampering of a photo with high tech digital computers today, then it would be easy to determine a forgery from 1963.   

This Dartmouth study appeared in the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law.
 
Hany Farid was the Darrmouth professor of computer science that helped lead the study and completed the analysis. He's a pioneering researcher in digital forensics. His team of researchers developed mathematical and computational techniques to detect tampering and forgery in photos. After the entire analysis of all the backyard photos were thoroughly researched, tested, and analyzed, Farid determined there was no "tampering of the photos". The lighting, the shadows, and the rifle in Oswald's hands were all concluded as authentic and the analysis refuted the argument of any photo "tampering or forgery". That is what he concluded through 3-D computer models and digital forensic analysis.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: William Pilgrim on March 16, 2021, 11:37:35 PM

Cant believe that the back yard has hardly changed since LHO lived there

https://earth.google.com/web/search/dallas/@32.75046882,-96.82597361,157.58155823a,0d,60y,69.69524273h,85.84889208t,0r/data=CigiJgokCURtPmKxY0VAEcaSDL-hY0VAGesJshnuxFHAIRJy0wX_xFHAIhoKFkV2QlFMZl9Ka2hRUjRXeUx2S1dKQmcQAg (https://earth.google.com/web/search/dallas/@32.75046882,-96.82597361,157.58155823a,0d,60y,69.69524273h,85.84889208t,0r/data=CigiJgokCURtPmKxY0VAEcaSDL-hY0VAGesJshnuxFHAIRJy0wX_xFHAIhoKFkV2QlFMZl9Ka2hRUjRXeUx2S1dKQmcQAg)

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 02, 2021, 10:00:51 PM

Quote from: Jack Trojan on March 29, 2020, 04:28:20 AM

If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?

At first..Marina didn't seem to know anything about the pictures. Then she said she took one. Then she testified that she didn't know how to advance the film. Then she said that Lee had to show her how to do it. Then somehow Lee assumed the same exact position [an impossibility] and she took another. Then a third picture mysteriously appears in later years ::)
If you look at all three images carefully, you’ll notice that Oswald’s face is exactly the same, even though the body is posed differently. Is that possible?

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Chris Bristow on April 05, 2021, 03:48:19 AM

Marina must have kept her feet in the same spot but Oswald is not in the same location for each shot. 133b he moved slightly right of 133a. 133c he has stepped back a bit.
 All the other stuff you mentioned has merit I think. The biggest issue for me is his lean in 133a. Skeptics tout the Dartmouth study as proof the lean is stable but it is flawed. The fact they placed his left leg way to far forward caused that yellow outline of his stability area to land on the bullseye in an incorrect place. Correcting that error alone reduced their probability from 99.8%(I think) to 85%. Then as they have so often done in previous Dartmouth studies they subtracted one degree of lean by not rotating 133a to true level. When it is level the fence sits at 2.25 to 2.5 degrees right. compare their model side by side with a level photo of 133a and you find it is off by one degree. If you correct that the bullseye moves one inch to Oswald's right and further reduced their probability to about 55%.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Christopher on November 17, 2021, 12:42:36 AM

The photos don't have to be fake as they prove nothing.

LHO obviously was involved in some fringe groups and this photo session could be a part of fitting in with those groups. Or he could have been told to pose for the photos by people setting up, under some guise.

Either way, it doesn't prove he killed or wanted to kill Kennedy. Doesn't prove his innocence either.

To me, they are interesting but not crucial.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2021, 08:35:57 PM

Quote from: Michael Christopher on November 17, 2021, 12:42:36 AM

The photos don't have to be fake as they prove nothing.

LHO obviously was involved in some fringe groups and this photo session could be a part of fitting in with those groups. Or he could have been told to pose for the photos by people setting up, under some guise.

Either way, it doesn't prove he killed or wanted to kill Kennedy. Doesn't prove his innocence either.

To me, they are interesting but not crucial.

Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?

I think that's significant.

The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Michael Christopher on November 18, 2021, 11:27:10 PM

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on November 18, 2021, 08:35:57 PM

Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?

I think that's significant.

The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.

I think we're basically saying the same thing from different angles.

Title: Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
Post by: Bill Brown on November 29, 2021, 11:43:08 AM

The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).

The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes.  During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast.  These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark.  In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints.  In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints.  The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.

The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
 When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.

Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.