Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery

[Louis Earl]

My concern with the BY photos has never been bottomed on what is depicted in the photos.  My concern is that they are "too perfect."  Really?  We have photos of the accused assassin holding the very rifle and the pistol in his hands in broad daylight in his easily identifiable back yard? 

[Michael Walton]

Louis, I'm not sure what your line of thought is. Yes, that was the whole point of the photos - to show an alleged assassin holding guns up and Marxist literature. If we're to believe Marina, she was in a rush and didn't really care about taking these photos as she had other things to "attend" to. As Jerry said, all photos look almost as if they were taken on a tripod, perfectly framed with very little difference in the overall layout.

It's important, too, to take Oswald at his word. He did say that the photos were fake, that he could show how they were fake, and he never got an opportunity to show this. His lawyer never got that chance too because he was refused representation even after his death. Even Jeffrey Epstein has been given the benefit of the doubt upon his own death.

[Louis Earl]

The existence of photos that show "LHO" standing in the easily confirmed location of a former residence, holding Commie literature and "the" rifle and "the" pistol is a little too pat for me.  That fact alone for me raises suspicion as to the legitimacy of the photos.

How about a nice 8mm home movie of him putting the rifle inside the paper bag for carrying it into the TSBD?  That would really help the prosecution's case. 

[Rick Plant]

I have to disagree with your analysis.

A Dartmouth study a few years ago, confirmed the Oswald backyard photos were indeed authentic using high tech 3-D models and new digital image forensics. No evidence of forgery or tampering was detected in any of Oswald's photos.

Back then it was more difficult to forge a photo trying to appear authentic. With digital forensic analysis able to detect tampering of a photo with high tech digital computers today, then it would be easy to determine a forgery from 1963.   

This Dartmouth study appeared in the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law.
 
Hany Farid was the Darrmouth professor of computer science that helped lead the study and completed the analysis. He's a pioneering researcher in digital forensics. His team of researchers developed mathematical and computational techniques to detect tampering and forgery in photos. After the entire analysis of all the backyard photos were thoroughly researched, tested, and analyzed, Farid determined there was no "tampering of the photos". The lighting, the shadows, and the rifle in Oswald's hands were all concluded as authentic and the analysis refuted the argument of any photo "tampering or forgery". That is what he concluded through 3-D computer models and digital forensic analysis.

[William Pilgrim]

Cant believe that the back yard has hardly changed since LHO lived there

https://earth.google.com/web/search/dallas/@32.75046882,-96.82597361,157.58155823a,0d,60y,69.69524273h,85.84889208t,0r/data=CigiJgokCURtPmKxY0VAEcaSDL-hY0VAGesJshnuxFHAIRJy0wX_xFHAIhoKFkV2QlFMZl9Ka2hRUjRXeUx2S1dKQmcQAg

[Jerry Freeman]

If Marina didn't take the backyard photos would it be a conspiracy? Did she lie about taking only 2 photos and burning 1 of them?

At first..Marina didn't seem to know anything about the pictures. Then she said she took one. Then she testified that she didn't know how to advance the film. Then she said that Lee had to show her how to do it. Then somehow Lee assumed the same exact position [an impossibility] and she took another. Then a third picture mysteriously appears in later years
If you look at all three images carefully, you’ll notice that Oswald’s face is exactly the same, even though the body is posed differently. Is that possible?

[Chris Bristow]

Marina must have kept her feet in the same spot but Oswald is not in the same location for each shot. 133b he moved slightly right of 133a. 133c he has stepped back a bit.
 All the other stuff you mentioned has merit I think. The biggest issue for me is his lean in 133a. Skeptics tout the Dartmouth study as proof the lean is stable but it is flawed. The fact they placed his left leg way to far forward caused that yellow outline of his stability area to land on the bullseye in an incorrect place. Correcting that error alone reduced their probability from 99.8%(I think) to 85%. Then as they have so often done in previous Dartmouth studies they subtracted one degree of lean by not rotating 133a to true level. When it is level the fence sits at 2.25 to 2.5 degrees right. compare their model side by side with a level photo of 133a and you find it is off by one degree. If you correct that the bullseye moves one inch to Oswald's right and further reduced their probability to about 55%.