The Backyard Rifle Photos, the HSCA, and Two Scientists

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael T. Griffith, I believe my explanation in the last post completely explains the nose shadow in 133a.

Did you read the articles linked in my OP? Did you read Dr. Stahl's pixel-diffusion analysis of the backyard photos? Using differential equation fractal analysis, Stahl shows that the V-shaped shadow under Oswald’s nose is essentially identical in all four photos. Stahl debunks the pixel analysis of software scientist Hany Farid, who claimed the photos were genuine.

There is no need for an explanation for the nose shadow in 133-A. In 133-A, the nose shadow looks the way it should because the figure's head is virtually upright/not tilted. 133-A's nose shadow is not the problem. 133-B's nose shadow is the problem.

The HSCA could not duplicate 133-B's nose shadow without altering the angle of the model's head so far that "the subject is no longer looking at the camera" (2 H 414). This is part of what Congressman Fithian called out McCamy on, and that is when McCamy said, in effect, "Well, don't worry that we could not duplicate that nose shadow because we confirmed all the shadows with a vanishing point analysis."

I have also used a dummy head and reproduced it in natural sunlight. Those images are gone with my last hard drive but I am going to reproduce it.

Well, again, I'm certain you were able to duplicate the 133-A nose shadow, because that nose shadow looks the way it should given the position of the figure's head. Again, 133-A's nose shadow is not the problem.

I have not compared the nose shadows 133a and B but it is interesting and I will look at it. you mentioned that Cappel's head is not tilted 4  degrees right so it is not a valid comparison. But after the image is rotated 2 degrees right to level it Cappels head is tilted 4 degrees right. When measuring the tilt it is important to draw the line by using the center of the mouth and then bisecting the bridge of the nose. Because Cappel is also looking 2 or more degrees to his left, his nose will not line up with the center of his face and so it will give a false measurement.

The Cappel photo in question was apparently designed to duplicate 133-A, so, again, it proves nothing. Several reenactments have been done, and so far none of them have duplicated the variant shadows seen in the photos.

Regarding the use of keystoning to fake different camera positions it would not create the effect of the roofline in the background intersecting Oswald's stairs at different places. in133a the roofline hits the post next to Oswald a couple inches lower than 133c and a tiny bit lower than 133b. Keystoning can magniy, stretch or compress one axis of a photo but it will never change were the roof and post intersect. I have keystoned 133a and other photos and you cannot make the positions of the roof and post change relative to each other. You can change relative position if those position are not right next to each other. That is because the effect changes as you move from top to bottom(Assuming the keystone is vertical). But objects next to each other experience the same keystone and simply shrink or expand together. so it would be impossible for a keystone effect to change where the roof meets the post. There does appear to be a real camera height difference in the 3 backyard photos.

Then the HSCA PEP stunningly failed to detect that alleged "real camera height difference" with their parallax measurements. The PEP would have been thrilled to report that they found marked differences in the camera height in the photos. The PEP was forced to conclude that the camera moved only "slightly" between exposures. If anything, "slightly" is a bit of an overstatement. To produce the incredibly tiny background-object differences, the camera would have had to move very, very slightly, a matter of a small fraction of an inch, horizontally and vertically.

Hershel Womack, a professor emeritus of photography at Texas Tech University, has identified other indications of fraud in the backyard photos:

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.

With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa. (https://miketgriffith.com/files/faulty.htm)

[Michael Walton]

Here's a non-scientific photo comparison of LHO and the re-enactment. I drew the lines on the Cappel one and then tried to line up LHO's photo with it. Not perfect of course but just to see what would happen in the two are combined:

[Chris Bristow]

Here's a non-scientific photo comparison of LHO and the re-enactment. I drew the lines on the Cappel one and then tried to line up LHO's photo with it. Not perfect of course but just to see what would happen in the two are combined:

  The mismatch of those two stances becomes really obvious if you draw vertical lines from the Adam's apple to the ground. Cappel is barley leaning even though the top half of his body is cocked to one side. I think both photos need to be rotated right 2 degrees so both will be leaning a little less. Still the difference between their stances is obvious.
 Question: You and others have said it would be impossible to alter the tiny 8mm images in the Z film. Are you saying they could not work with enlargements because they have to maintain the original film grain or because blowing up the 8mm film would cause too much blur? I been guessing at the reason behind that for a while.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here's a non-scientific photo comparison of LHO and the re-enactment. I drew the lines on the Cappel one and then tried to line up LHO's photo with it. Not perfect of course but just to see what would happen in the two are combined:

I'm sorry, but this is really an irrelevant, pointless GIF that indicates a basic lack of understanding of the problems under discussion. Have you read any of the articles linked in my OP yet?

Here are some other problems with the backyard photos:

* In 133-B the backyard finger is a wearing a ring on his left hand, but in 133-A he is not. Care to explain why he would remove his ring for one photo and leave it on for the others?

* The backyard figure is a wearing a shirt that was never found among Oswald's belongings. Oswald was a miser, a penny-pincher, who never threw away anything, certainly not good shirts.

* The backyard figure is wearing a watch that was never found among Oswald's belongings. Also, the watch looks like a nice watch, nothing like the cheap watch that Oswald was videotaped/photographed wearing in 1963, when he wore watch at all.

* 133-A-DeM (the DeMohrenschildt print) shows a much larger amount of background around the edges than any of the photographs. The FBI said 133-B was identified as being taken with Oswald's camera because it could be matched to the film plane aperture. But if 133-A-DeM picture shows a larger background area and was taken from the same camera viewpoint, then 133-A, B, and C have all been cropped and, therefore, it could not possibly be matched to the film plane aperture.