Opinions on Roscoe White story?

[David Josephs]

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?