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?
You are right Nick... I do not believe the Oliver Stone reference for this image... there is no way to remove him from the image and leave an exact duplicate unless you already have an empty photo to start.
BUT - he can easily be added
And the empty photo winds up being an exact match to the image with Oswald in it....
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?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
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: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)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5670[/ATTACH]
Sorry Nick...
Rose and Stovall find and submit as evidence 2 photos and 2 Negatives found at the Paines on 11/23.
ONE of the negatives disappears while years later the HSCA uncovers 133-C
(366) The Photographic Evidence Panelexamined Warren Commission exhibits CE 133-A and 133-B, the twobackyard pictures seized from the Oswald residence byDallas Police in 1963 ; CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, and CE134, an enlargement of CE133-A.**
In addition to these Warren Commission exhibits, the Panel analyzedthe four photographs recently discovered by the committee
(367) (1) A photograph designated as133A-de Mohrenschildt recovered from the estate of the late George deMohrenschildt ; (155)
(368) (2) A photograph designated as 133C-Deer, obtained from theDees' (Roscoe White) widow ; (156)
(369) (3) Photographs designated as133A-Stovall and 133-C Stovall, obtainedfrom Stovall.(157)
(See fig. IV-15, JFK exhibit F-178, for a display of all of thesephotographic materials except CE-134,which is shownin fig. IV-22.)
The FBI and the DPD created recreations photos of these BYPs along with the ghost image found at the DPD USING THE 133-C pose... which were not discovered until the HSCA in the mid 70's,
as opposed to using one of the two poses they already had in their possession..
HOW DID THE FBI KNOW TO POSITION THEIR MAN LIKE THAT AND TO CUT THE GHOST OUT IN THAT SHAPE?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5671[/ATTACH]
There are a whole slew of these recreation shotos in different locations and I believe they all have a pose which NO ONE should have been aware of unless they were involved in the creation and/or reproduction of the BYPs themselves
and if you re-insert the 133-c pose of Oswald into the ghosted image- it's not even close - so there are at least 2 ghosted image backgrounds and it appears as if the ghost was copied onto the one on the right
you can see the drop shadow. There are more versions of this UNKNOWN in 1963 POSE than we know...
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?
* 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?
This photo was then analyzed with the other known BYPs **including the Roscoe White copy** (news to me!) by the HSCA?
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]
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.
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.
???
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/archiv...PageId=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?
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.
???
It is possible Oswald assisted in the creation of each of the BYPs - we know he had ID that was photographically created by reducing the print and adding a photo...
But I doubt it highly..
That Roscoe's widow has a version of this photo as well as STOVALL is simply a bit too much of a coincidence.
Along with the very real arguments showing the Oswalds never having been at Neely, but that's another subject.
---------------
Nick... we're getting into the weeds here. All we are doing is ID'ing the players and very little discussion on the deeper political connotations.
How far in advance these photos (and much of the other evidence) were created can give us a good idea of the assassination timeline.
At some point Oswald crossed over from asset to patsy and was placed at the TSBD while all this evidence was being arranged.
How involved was the mysterious MARINA and Havery's caretaker the short fat version of Marguerite....
In the same WCD I refer to, Marina claims her ex business manager sold LIFE a copy of the photo for $5K while THORNE, her former attorney, also tells her that HE sold the picture to LIFE for $5K.
After the many years I've been at this, I enjoy helping others see that the entirety of the evidence is good for only one thing... proving conspiracy... and even there the details require so much effort to corrolate
and make sense. If you are hoping the evidence will shed light on the events of the day and thier history I have to refer you to Salandria - who saw this the weekend of the killings:
Cheers my friend
DJ
"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I think we are half on the same page, and possibly half arguing semantics.
Whatever the records show about when the photos went missing (or never found in the first place, whatever you are trying to say?) I am insinuating that the "missing" photo *was shown to Oswald* and that after he caught their slight of hand, they ditched it. If you could speak to that, I would appreciate it. By "speak to that", I mean, tell me why or why not this theory is off - specifically.
6:00 - 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz's Office[size=12] "In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Lifemagazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . . . The Dallas Police were the culprits. . . . The small picture was reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown to me. . . . Since I have been photographed at City Hall, with people taking my picture while being transferred from the office to the jail door, someone has been able to get a picture of my face, and with that, they have made this picture. . . .I never kept a rifle at Mrs. Paine's garage at Irving, Tex. . . . We had no visitors at our apartment on North Beckley. . . .I have no receipts for purchase of any gun, and I have never ordered any guns. I do not own a rifle, never possessed a rifle. . . . I will not say who wrote A. J. Hidell on my Selective Service card. [It was later confirmed that Marina Oswald wrote in the name Hidell.] . . . I will not tell you the purpose of carrying the card or the use I made of it. . . . The address book in my possession has the names of Russian immigrants in Dallas, Tex., whom I have visited."
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 [/SIZE]
Nick - you are of course entitled to whatever you'd like to think...
I've done enough photoshop work to know that the backgrounds of these two images are NOT the same and were NOT taken from the same distance.. It has nothing to do with APPARENTLY Nick...
If the background was the same we'd be able to superimpose it and it would match... it does not.
Oswald was NOT shown 133-C... sorry. The "premature" refers to your using 133-C with regards to ANY witness or ANY relationship to other photos from that day... any time prior to the HSCA
What I am saying is that in Fritz's report HE REMEMBERS the conversation as happening around 12:35 on 11/23 while the photos do not arrive at the DPD until later in the day...
He is SHOWN the photos at 6pm... when he says all these things - supposedly. The CSS form showns only NEGATIVES while Stovall claims the found photos are listed on the inventory as "misc photos"... there is a listing from Irving that shows "misc phots" if you believe that they would seperate the photos and negatives and not specify the BYP photos specifically...
The PHOTOS are printed at the DPD... need I say more as to why one of the negatives disappears?
Now Nick... it is GREAT to speculate when trying to prove a theory... yet there is no evidence I have seen that brings 133-C to light before the early 70's OTHER than the suspicious posing of the DPD and the ghost cutout matching THAT pose.
STOVALL and WHITE each have a copy of 133-C....
Cool?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5677[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
well after spending 30 minutes manipulating the image on the right on top of the image on the left using photoshop, transparency and size adjustments ...
(these ones: http://www.copweb.be/images/CE-133-all.jpg)
... I am forced to agree with you, DAVID.
If the one on the right is reduced to around 86-88 percent the entire bush on the right and the large fence line that is just to the left of that bush line up exactly ... but the entire stairs, shadows below them, the small picket fence, and even some leaves on the left do not line up.
I find it odd though that half the perspective is a match, but the other half is grossly incongruous. But i guess that is just optics for ya.
Any idea WHAT Oswald WAS referring to then?
Seems like he was on to something, but i'm drawing blanks now.
What did he see that he thought was reduced from another image?
Glad you gave it a try yourself... thanks for the confirmation.
To be honest Nick... what others say Oswald said has always been tricky for me...
I did go thru Fritz' notes and it does appear much of what he jotted down was true...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5680[/ATTACH]
In terms of what he MAY have been referring to? I know Oswald did this one by reducing the actual card's text and adding a reduced sized photo from elswhere...
It also appears as if they are done on the same typewriter - the dot at the bottom right of the "A" and "E", the "ES" of the James... and HIDELL is larger than the otehr two words and not typed over...
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5681[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
