The Backyard Photo Paradox

[Jack Trojan]

Yes, I was replying to your previous post. 

There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.               

Dartmouth probably had a respectable team of forensic photo analysts looking at the photo(s), however, being a photogrammetrist myself, I know the limitations they faced with 3D modelling. The algorithms can only detect a sloppy job and can only identify content that doesn't fit the model. But they can't detect any superimpositions if the scaling, color, composition and resolution are accurate. The absence of mistakes doesn't make it authentic. So take Dartmouth's analysis with a grain of salt because they were only looking for obvious signs of editing. Not a useless analysis, but inconclusive at best, otherwise, incomplete. You need the negatives to authenticate anything. And even then.

That said, I buy their conclusions that the photos weren't edited because they didn't need to be. People assume they were edited because of the gross differences between 133a and 133b. Oswald's head becomes enormous and in focus. Dartmouth must have concluded that Oswald's head was outside the "sweet spot" of the lens for all shots except for 133a, which accounted for the distortion. What they should have done was compare the spherical aberration for all the photos and look for anomalies. It would soon become apparent that 133a stands out like a sore thumb and does not match the others. Why didn't Dartmouth investigate whether all the photos where shot with the same camera/lens and analyse the negative for 133a? Oh, right, the DPD (cough, cough) lost it along with all the others. If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.

[Ray Mitcham]

Farid from Dartmouth told me via email that he only studied One (1) of the photos. Note  not  PHOTOS (plural)

[Walt Cakebread]

Dartmouth probably had a respectable team of forensic photo analysts looking at the photo(s), however, being a photogrammetrist myself, I know the limitations they faced with 3D modelling. The algorithms can only detect a sloppy job and can only identify content that doesn't fit the model. But they can't detect any superimpositions if the scaling, color, composition and resolution are accurate. The absence of mistakes doesn't make it authentic. So take Dartmouth's analysis with a grain of salt because they were only looking for obvious signs of editing. Not a useless analysis, but inconclusive at best, otherwise, incomplete. You need the negatives to authenticate anything. And even then.

That said, I buy their conclusions that the photos weren't edited because they didn't need to be. People assume they were edited because of the gross differences between 133a and 133b. Oswald's head becomes enormous and in focus. Dartmouth must have concluded that Oswald's head was outside the "sweet spot" of the lens for all shots except for 133a, which accounted for the distortion. What they should have done was compare the spherical aberration for all the photos and look for anomalies. It would soon become apparent that 133a stands out like a sore thumb and does not match the others. Why didn't Dartmouth investigate whether all the photos where shot with the same camera/lens and analyse the negative for 133a? Oh, right, the DPD (cough, cough) lost it along with all the others. If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.

If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.

Yes, I think you're right, the BY photos implicate the DPD....and are more incriminating to the DPD than they are to Lee Oswald.

Perhaps that's why they were hidden from us "pissants" ( as LBJ called us) until after the the big lie had been widely accepted by us suckers.   

The vast majority of the public still believe that the BY photos are proof that Lee Oswald was guilty. But when they are viewed in the light that they are simply  ridiculous renditions like "carnival fakes" that depict a subject as being jail bird in black and white stripes, and a ball and chain around an ankle, then one can understand what Lee was referring to when he scoffed at the BY photo that Fritz showed him.   

[Chris Bristow]

Here are some facts about the 133c cutout images.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. So when we see Lt Brown doing the 133c pose in the Dallas PD backyard photo recreations it is no mystery. White was tasked to take those Dallas PD backyard photos and had is copy of 133c at the time.
 I don't know how 133c fell through the cracks after Stovell and White got their copies but it never made it into evidence. Maybe that is nefarious but the other issues surrounding 133c are explainable.
 The cut out image I believe was found with the contents of White's desk or as part of his work stuff. He was tasked with testing Oswald's claims by trying to duplicate the BY photo. The claim has been that the cutout was a pre assassination test run at faking a photo to set up Oswald. but the background in both the cutout images are from the Dallas PD  re creaction photos taken after the assassination. The shadows on the bottom of the back door are an exact match for two of the Dallas PD photos. Also the Dallas PD photos were taken from a couple feet to the left and from much lower like 18 inches.
 One interesting thing about those cutout images is they were a sloppy failed attempt. White uses a cutout image from 133a and located the cutout so the head would align at the same place as 133c relative to the roof line in the background. The problem though, is the camera for the Dallas PD photos is much lower and lowered the roof line relative to the stairway post next to Oswald. This caused the cutouts feet to land at a place much lower in the frame. Lower ground is closer ground in the 2d photo and now Oswald's feet appear much closer to the camera. This means he should appear much larger but the cutout was sized to the background to match Oswald in 133c.
 This not only makes him too small for reality it messes up the perspective. As you get closer to the camera your image size increases as you feet grow down and your head grows upward. But in the case of the cutout the feet grew down but the head moved down too, the image of Oswald did not grow.
So with those obvious mistakes it is understandable that White also rotated the cutout too far to the left. Although it is interesting that 133a seems to also be rotated too far left.

 
 
 

[Walt Cakebread]

Here are some facts about the 133c cutout images.
Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later. So when we see Lt Brown doing the 133c pose in the Dallas PD backyard photo recreations it is no mystery. White was tasked to take those Dallas PD backyard photos and had is copy of 133c at the time.
 I don't know how 133c fell through the cracks after Stovell and White got their copies but it never made it into evidence. Maybe that is nefarious but the other issues surrounding 133c are explainable.
 The cut out image I believe was found with the contents of White's desk or as part of his work stuff. He was tasked with testing Oswald's claims by trying to duplicate the BY photo. The claim has been that the cutout was a pre assassination test run at faking a photo to set up Oswald. but the background in both the cutout images are from the Dallas PD  re creaction photos taken after the assassination. The shadows on the bottom of the back door are an exact match for two of the Dallas PD photos. Also the Dallas PD photos were taken from a couple feet to the left and from much lower like 18 inches.
 One interesting thing about those cutout images is they were a sloppy failed attempt. White uses a cutout image from 133a and located the cutout so the head would align at the same place as 133c relative to the roof line in the background. The problem though, is the camera for the Dallas PD photos is much lower and lowered the roof line relative to the stairway post next to Oswald. This caused the cutouts feet to land at a place much lower in the frame. Lower ground is closer ground in the 2d photo and now Oswald's feet appear much closer to the camera. This means he should appear much larger but the cutout was sized to the background to match Oswald in 133c.
 This not only makes him too small for reality it messes up the perspective. As you get closer to the camera your image size increases as you feet grow down and your head grows upward. But in the case of the cutout the feet grew down but the head moved down too, the image of Oswald did not grow.
So with those obvious mistakes it is understandable that White also rotated the cutout too far to the left. Although it is interesting that 133a seems to also be rotated too far left.
 

Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later.

Officer Stovall also had a copy of 133c. ( And Detective Rusty Livingston also had a copy of 133c) He said he and White both had copies made for themselves the day they found them or the next day. 

133C did not surface until many years later....   Do you have solid evidence that the DPD had 133c on 11/23/63?   I believe that Fritz had 133c BEFORE 11/22/63........

 Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later.    Huh?   She was married to both of them?

[John Iacoletti]

To be precise, Dartmouth University didn't do the analysis.  Hany Farid, who happens to be a faculty member at Dartmouth, did the analysis.  As far as I know, he only looked at a print of CE 133A.

[Bill Brown]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

Do you have solid evidence that the DPD had 133c on 11/23/63?   I believe that Fritz had 133c BEFORE 11/22/63........

 Stovall and Roscoe Whites wife turned them in years later.    Huh?   She was married to both of them?
[/quote]
No there is no solid evidence that the Dallas PD had the photos. There is just the testimony of Stovall who said they had copies made that day. Still the image went missing at some point and I guess that would have been after they made copies and before things were entered into evidence. The only other thing we know is that Roscoe White used 133c to do the Dallas PD backyard photograph of Lieutenant Brown and he used 133c to make his cut out image.
  I should have said " Stovall, and Roscoe whites wife". One missing comma and the meaning totally changes.
The point I really wanted to make was that the cut out images cannot be evidence that they were working on fabricating the backyard pictures prior to 11 22 63 since the background for the cut-out photos are the Dallas PD backyard recreations.