By definition, the top of a shadow caused by the sun on flat ground will line up back thru the subject to the source of light.
The bottom of this image illustrates the point. No matter where we take this photo, the shadows will always run back towards the sun.
The POINT being that shadows will never converge in the direction opposite the light source... that would be counter intuitive and look really strange... as we will see...
You see the inset of the BYP above, but let's see the entire thing. If anything, the post's shadow should be a slightly larger angle so it converges at the light source over the right shoulder of the photographer...
Instead, what we see is that Oswald's shadow and the stairway post's will ultimately converge opposite the light source...
Let's use the famous Nov 29th version of the photo not seen or found until 1977. The stand-in's shadow and the stairway post shadow are in virtually the same direction leading back to the light source behind the camera.
Oswald's shadow and the post converge behind him...
This is not possible with the physics of light. The BYP is a composite
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
That said, Does anyone know just how many of the bogus Back Yard Photos (BYP) were made, or in circulation I should say...reason I'm asking is to move forward with truth rather than speculation. I've heard/read that this suggestively incriminating photo was in the possession of Mr. Oswald's close friend, George De Mohrenschildt . Fact or fiction?
Also, Any idea when these BYP photos were snapped (just trying to get a sense of when the planners begin to "groom"/steer Mr. Oswald into his Patsy role.
Alan Ford Wrote:Another exemplary presentation in store I see.
That said, Does anyone know just how many of the bogus Back Yard Photos (BYP) were made, or in circulation I should say...reason I'm asking is to move forward with truth rather than speculation. I've heard/read that this suggestively incriminating photo was in the possession of Mr. Oswald's close friend, George De Mohrenschildt . Fact or fiction?
Also, Any idea when these BYP photos were snapped (just trying to get a sense of when the planners begin to "groom"/steer Mr. Oswald into his Patsy role.
George did have his own version of the photo... here is the back... I believe the front is a copy of 133-A
the actual photos of the backyard, as opposed to those of Oswald in the image, were supposedly taken in Feb/March 1963... but who knows.
ok Alan... some things you may or may not be aware of...
LIFE mag altered the image for its publication... the WCR even shows how and where
Det Brown's pose on Nov 29th is the same as 133-C which was not made available to anyone until 1977... and then by Roscoe White's widow and from Stovall's possession... one of the men there that afternoon.
There are those that claim this image, 133-C, was seen and available that weekend... I disagree and have yet to see any evidence that supports that conclusion.
I also show how a certain professor who claims all is fine with the BYP - is actually rigging the model and does not represent Oswald's position
Finally, when we superimpse the image of OSWALD from the BYP into the ghost image found at the DPD... something very strange occurs.... it doesn't come close to matching...
Cheers
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
First, appreciate the confirmation w/the wrongly accused's close friend indeed having a photo in his possession--Thanks!
Quite impressive to say the least, Mr. Josephs at your knack for calling out the purveyors of meaningless talk or activity(ties) designed to draw attention away from the truth and disguise what is actually happening.
The timing of the BYP (Feb/Mar) gives us some insights into how early the real culprits were steering the wrongly accused into his Patsy role. Between your revelations here on the bogus BYP, and the exemplary research by Mr. Parker (Greg) and Mr. Scully (Tom) on the Neely Street address, it's an eye-opener to what great lengths the framers were willing to go through to implicate their designated Patsy.
Oh, to be a naive kid once again, with nothing but respect for Life, Time, pick a major media magazine, etc. major sell-outs...
Do I dare ask who the professor is that you referenced? Two thumbs up for doing your part to separate fact from fiction.
The 'Hunter of Fascists' written in Cyrilic seems to be in the same handwriting as George's writing. And why would any one claim copyright over some thing that they did not create? Why bother mentioning it? It was a gift made by some one else. I wouldn't claim copyright on a book or photo that some one gave me. Weird.
David Josephs Wrote:
Alan Ford Wrote:Another exemplary presentation in store I see.
That said, Does anyone know just how many of the bogus Back Yard Photos (BYP) were made, or in circulation I should say...reason I'm asking is to move forward with truth rather than speculation. I've heard/read that this suggestively incriminating photo was in the possession of Mr. Oswald's close friend, George De Mohrenschildt . Fact or fiction?
Also, Any idea when these BYP photos were snapped (just trying to get a sense of when the planners begin to "groom"/steer Mr. Oswald into his Patsy role.
George did have his own version of the photo... here is the back... I believe the front is a copy of 133-A
the actual photos of the backyard, as opposed to those of Oswald in the image, were supposedly taken in Feb/March 1963... but who knows.
ok Alan... some things you may or may not be aware of...
LIFE mag altered the image for its publication... the WCR even shows how and where
Det Brown's pose on Nov 29th is the same as 133-C which was not made available to anyone until 1977... and then by Roscoe White's widow and from Stovall's possession... one of the men there that afternoon.
There are those that claim this image, 133-C, was seen and available that weekend... I disagree and have yet to see any evidence that supports that conclusion.
I also show how a certain professor who claims all is fine with the BYP - is actually rigging the model and does not represent Oswald's position
Finally, when we superimpse the image of OSWALD from the BYP into the ghost image found at the DPD... something very strange occurs.... it doesn't come close to matching...
Cheers
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Alan Ford Wrote:First, appreciate the confirmation w/the wrongly accused's close friend indeed having a photo in his possession--Thanks!
Quite impressive to say the least, Mr. Josephs at your knack for calling out the purveyors of meaningless talk or activity(ties) designed to draw attention away from the truth and disguise what is actually happening.
The timing of the BYP (Feb/Mar) gives us some insights into how early the real culprits were steering the wrongly accused into his Patsy role. Between your revelations here on the bogus BYP, and the exemplary research by Mr. Parker (Greg) and Mr. Scully (Tom) on the Neely Street address, it's an eye-opener to what great lengths the framers were willing to go through to implicate their designated Patsy.
Oh, to be a naive kid once again, with nothing but respect for Life, Time, pick a major media magazine, etc. major sell-outs...
Do I dare ask who the professor is that you referenced? Two thumbs up for doing your part to separate fact from fiction.
My response was removed ... I understand why...
Part of the reply included the answer... a Professor Farid (sp?) from Dartmouth claims his wire frame proves the BYP Oswald position is possible.
I simply wanted to see if he reproduced the image correctly; first. y'know, like checking if the thing is plugged in first before you go and try to fix it...
Anyway... no matter how hard one tries, the wire frame and the image do not line up....
... always check out what is being claimed in the most simple manner possible, first... then get into the weeds if need be.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
The first attempt to prove that the backyard photos were composite fakes was done within Jim Garrison's team, mostly headed up by a then young UCLA film student named Stephen Jaffe under Garrison's direction. He [Jaffe] gave testimony on the study done within the Garrison team on the photos to the Church Committee, but it was NOT included in the published reports. It is however still available at NARA in the Church Committee boxes. One wonders how much other testimony never made the final reports. I've been in contact with Jaffe - the only person who worked for Garrison still alive to my knowlege and will ask him the exact designation of his materials at NARA in case anyone is interested in how far Garrison went in proving these photos fakes long before most other detailed studies. For sure other researchers had immediately labeled them suspect to fakes upon seeing them.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
By definition, the top of a shadow caused by the sun on flat ground will line up back thru the subject to the source of light.
The bottom of this image illustrates the point. No matter where we take this photo, the shadows will always run back towards the sun.
The POINT being that shadows will never converge in the direction opposite the light source... that would be counter intuitive and look really strange... as we will see...
You see the inset of the BYP above, but let's see the entire thing. If anything, the post's shadow should be a slightly larger angle so it converges at the light source over the right shoulder of the photographer...
Instead, what we see is that Oswald's shadow and the stairway post's will ultimately converge opposite the light source...
Let's use the famous Nov 29th version of the photo not seen or found until 1977. The stand-in's shadow and the stairway post shadow are in virtually the same direction leading back to the light source behind the camera.
Oswald's shadow and the post converge behind him...
This is not possible with the physics of light. The BYP is a composite
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9290&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9290&stc=1)
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9291&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9291&stc=1)
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9292&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9292&stc=1)
: