Nick Rose Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:You think no one has addressed the bump on Roscoe White's arm because you must be new to all this or young or both. Jack White, long an honored member here [and well known JFK researcher], who died about two years ago now LONG AGO pointed this out in videos, photo displays, in posts on various JFK-related forum, and was cited in many books on just that. He was sure the model used to paste on the Oswald head was R. White.....for a variety of reasons. Most [not all] here, I would assume, accept that as either a strong possibility or likely so [depending on who] and not needed for discussion again. Please find Jack White's video on the backyard photos on the internet and view it. You are, however, welcome to bring it up again - and have and have been responded to. There are yet other backyard photos out there. The entire story of their provenance has not been fully written; over time new ones kept being found in the strangest of places - the Paine's; R. White house; in a G. de Mohrenscheildt book, in the DPD, and elsewhere. R. White is a touchy subject for some researchers - some lost their lives [apparently] for looking into his life. One excellent researcher quit after his wife begged him to stop research after getting close to the R. White story. Jack White, himself, was stabbed in the neck with an ice pick in what I think was an attempted murder for his JFK photographic work - which covered more than just R. White and the Backyard Photos. My computer was broken into because of a backyard photo, and there are other things connected to that that I don't care to go into further. As mentioned before, there also was a BIG phony story floated about R. White and the diaries/cables et al...that even tripped up and entrapped some good researchers and, I believe, was invented and 'pushed' from Disinformation Central. You'll find a lot on White in the better books on the assassination and on the EF. On the JFK photo websites you can see all the variants of the photo.
I believe R. White was connected to the creation of the backyard photos. He may well have been the 'model'. He also may have been the photographer and the person who made the composite with the Oswald face, and the wrongly sized papers, etc. Marina did not take those photos. The camera obviously was on a tripod. The photos IMO were planted in various locations 'to be found' to incriminate LHO. Others IMO were 'trophies' of setting up the patsy, and found later. As they were fake composites they are interesting - and show yet another way the patsy was set up. I don't personally find any special significance to the one with no person in it. It was taken at the same time as the others. I think most photo analysts believe a photo with a body in that backyard by the steps was used to place the head of Oswald on; not that a body was placed into the blank photo of the backyard...but one can imagine that more difficult photo job...but I don't believe it is supported nor likely. Again, the new book called Into The Nightmare has a lot on R. White, although it is mostly about Tippit.

I am aware of the existence of the other photos (likely planted).
I was aware of the RW story in general (and as I say I only recently discovered it).
I suppose I was superficially aware via forum results of Jack White's discussion.
However, given that the only real mentions I saw of the RW story were on a website or two of arguable merit,
I was seeking the opinions of the community here in general.


I really wish that something like the post you have just provided was the type of response I was originally given. Much would have thus been avoided.


I understand your comment that the use of a blank back yard photo as the template for inserting an entire body in to, and then inserting another head on top of is certainly a harder task than simply taking a picture of a man in a back yard and then inserting a photo on his head.


However, I again have to address your attention to the FACT that NOTHING in that blank photo is different from the extant photos with the man in them. Even assuming that the blank photograph was taken mere seconds before the man jumped in to the frame and posed (not likely anyhow) it still does not account for the fact that NOTHING is different in that photo. As I previously stated - not a single leaf on a tree. Not a single shadow of a tree branch, NOR A SINGLE BLADE OF GRASS is in even a SLIGHTLY different position. They are *identical*. Absolutely identical. The ONLY thing that is different, and I walked through the process of WHY it would be done is that the empty backyard photo was "burned in" to be much darker (and I even pointed to absolute evidence of that in a "shadow" jumping forward) so that the man who was inserted did not appear to have an abnormally high contrast relative to the background he was placed in.


I can not claim to know exactly how or why the man was inserted, or if in fact this is actually what happened, i am merely saying that the fact that the empty photo is 100% identical (as that animated GIF shows) is *strongly* suggestive of this fact.

I SUCK at image editing, so along with my poor edit of the animated gif intended only to show you the two areas i mention,
i will include below it the full original which is not "screwed up" with dithering or whatever those awful artifacts are (interlace fail?)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5665[/ATTACH]

NOW LOOK AT THOSE TWO CIRCLED AREAS IN THE IMAGE BELOW:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5666[/ATTACH]

The area I had circled on the left side STRONGLY indicates that the entire figure was placed on top of the existing image.
The area I had circled on the right is STRONGLY indicative that the original empty photo was "burned in" or overexposed to match the contrast of the foreground subject.

Again, note how NOT EVEN THE GRASS UNDER THE MANS FOOT MOVES.
HOW CAN THAT BE?

David Josephs Wrote:One again wonders how a photo was taken of the same exact pose for Oswlad yet that pose was not unearthed for years... why are none of the "poses" the same as the found photographs since they were the only things the DPD/FBI had to use... HOW did they match the 133-C pose exactly if they did not know it existed?

Nick Rose Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:One again wonders how a photo was taken of the same exact pose for Oswlad yet that pose was not unearthed for years... why are none of the "poses" the same as the found photographs since they were the only things the DPD/FBI had to use... HOW did they match the 133-C pose exactly if they did not know it existed?

What are you referring to here?
Can you walk me through this slowly?
When you say "a photo was taken *of the same exact pose for Oswald*" what are you referring to. What pose "was not unearthed for years"? What "found photographs"?

I'm sorry to be daft. I want to follow along but I am having trouble. Match the 133-c pose to WHAT?
if you could provide images or source links with each reference you make, it may allay some of my confusion.

thank you david!

I will further add to your comments regarding the empty backyard photo:
1. two reasons it may have been more feasible (and contrary to first thought, arguably easier) to insert the entire body onto a pre-existing blank backyard photo
a. perpetrators may not have had unfettered access to the backyard or wanted to risk being seen (makes sense, no?)
b. perpetrators may have needed the body image taken against a white background to seemlessly-as-possible insert Oswald's head on top of it
2. with reference to the white background in 1-b.
it is possible that the white sliver between the fence is either an accidental portion of this white background left uncut from around the man's body,
or if we are arguing a higher level of sophistication and lack of error, it could have a been a "control point" left for insertion in to the background photo.
That white sliver hangs conveniently off of some sort of black appendage on the leg (could just look that way) and could have been used to precisely place the model. In otherwords, having cut out the body leaving that little white sliver exactly between the fence (having had the man's body overlaid on top of the background image while working with it, you know on one of those lightboards, where you place one image under glass?) the perpetrator could then take the body of the man along with that little white sliver left attached and position that little sliver right back in between the fence to create the composite. (just a bad guess here)

David Josephs Wrote:Sorry Nick...

[...]full post removed for space saving[/...]

Nick Rose Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:Sorry Nick...

[...]full post removed for space saving[/...]

AHHH.
Picture worth a thousand words.

I can never understand why more posts don't include the images... makes it so much easier to follow

Okay.
Pretty sure i am largely on the same page as you now.
A few questions for clarification, etc ...

*first picture you have there (that is the three photos in a row)
The one on the right is the one that went missing?

Not "missing" as opposed to NEVER FOUND... at least not in 1963 or 1964.
This is Marina relating some interesting things about the photos and camera she supposedly worked that day.... she could only remember 1 or 2 photos which she burned on 11/23 (according to this report)
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11133&relPageId=107

* second photo with the stand-in man
This is the one that was *taken very soon after the murder* but based on a photo you are saying they did not have access to,
as it went missing?

If I am mistaken about the FBI taking a photo like that too I apologize, yet I seem to remember them doing so... the DPD did:
CE 712-713 - Photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department on November 29, 1963, showing backyard of home on Neely ...497
Since 133-C was not found for years to come... how does the DPD know to pose the man exactly like this pose that surfaces years later?


This photo was then analyzed with the other known BYPs **including the Roscoe White copy** (news to me!) by the HSCA?
Oh, Nick... while the HSCA was indeed a complete sham... Evidence of the conspiracy is easily found within its volumes... There is greater detail from the HSCA on the Med farce, the photographs and the handwriting analysis... along with the famous dictabelt sound conclusions... the world's only conspiracy without any conpirators... the HSCA is wonderful for catching the powers that be with their hands in the cookie jar.

Okay okay.

I think I am 100% with you SO FAR.

BUT HERE IS A QUESTION ...
i think i MAY be losing you towards the end with your comment about them not lining up, not even close, and there being "two ghosted image backgrounds"

HOWEVER ... I think my own original question may be actually getting right back to where I lose you ... AND POSSIBLY TO WHY THAT PHOTO WENT MISSING ...

[so obviously i have a second question: WHY did that photo go missing ... well possibly here is an answer]

As I stated above, 133-c was never missing... it simply was not brought to light at the same time as the other photos, only years later.
BUT, the negative to 133-A was noted and did disappear before the HSCA could see it - leaving only the one negative

BTW - please notice that the background is different in relation to Oswald in each BYP. Either the subject or the camera was moved - which means that only photos that are taken from the identical spot can be superimposed and matched... which again is why the BYP without Oswald and with have to be from the same blank BYP original.

Okay ...
Oswald in his interrogation is adamant that the backyard photos were faked. He seems to have hit the nail on the head that one of his arrest photos was used as the paste on head ... BUT HERE IS ANOTHER THING ... Oswald asked a question that had me confused until you mention all this here ... it was something like, "this large photo here, it was made by blowing up the small one? or that small one it was made from blowing up the large one?" [i assume the two photographs were physically of different size? i dunno, irrelevant anyhow ...]

*** WAS OSWALD REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT OF THE IMAGES UP TOP, THE LEFT AND RIGHT IMAGE ARE MADE FROM THE IDENTICAL BACKGROUND *** (proof of forgery) while the one in the middle is taken against a second background image?

IF SO, THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WENT MISSING.
It was DAMNING. So they pulled it.

Sorry Nick, but your "missing" theory is premature. According to Fritz, he asked Oswald about the photos 3+ hours before they were found (read Fritz's report of the interrogation) and Michael Paine was asked about them the night of the 22nd.

I do not know from whereyou are quoting Oswald about large and small ones....

I would need to do some digging to find out how/why they posed that man like that on the 29th when 133-C was nowhere in sight...
or how the ghost image was done to exactly match the 133-C pose.

Obviously I've been off the mark a few times already, so I'd like to hear your take, but I think I may actually be on it here.
???

IM CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR "MY THEORY IS PREMATURE" SECTION ...
Read the above interrogation words of Oswald. HE *WAS* SHOWN THE PICTURES.
Are you saying that Fritz's diary disputes this? What ARE you saying? (this is friendly, not accusatory - trying to get to the meat here)

Regarding your statements to which I am somewhat confused about the nature of the subjects position in the 3 photos shown at the top of your other post.
I can not discern exactly what you are trying to prove or disprove about my statements, but I ask you to once again look at the photo on the left, and the photo on the right.
Is it *not apparent to you* that both photos use an IDENTICAL EMPTY BACK YARD PHOTO as the basis for the photo ... except the one on the right the photo is cropped in closer and blown up slightly before a slightly larger "oswald" image is inserted?

I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT OSWALD WAS REFERING TO IN HIS INTERROGATION!
If you look at the photo on the right, it IS slightly smaller in dimensions. Oswald is possibly claiming this one (on the right) "was reduced" from the larger one (left).
I also believe this is probably why the photo on the right "disappeared" (or however you want to semantically phrase it) ...
IT WAS INCRIMINATING OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT to have two obviously "related" (made from the same blank BYP) "different" photos of Oswald.
Even Oswald, with his naked eye could discern this trickery. [assuming my theory holds water]

Now -- i will leave you to respond, if you so choose.
Thanks