The Backyard Photo Paradox

[Rick Plant]

What does "authentic" mean and who determined that? Unfortunately, a photo-analyst can't tell you whether you are looking at a picture of a picture that has been modified. So how can authenticity be established and what does it mean?

Roscoe White was the mastermind behind the BYPs. He had real darkroom skills and he was Photoshopping prints with film enlargers and taking pictures of edited prints. His wife Geneva even found an undocumented BYP in his garage after he died. This photo was designated CE 133-c and matched a cutout which was also found in Roscoe's possession.



As far as I'm concerned CE 133-c is the smoking gun proving Roscoe White was an integral part in Oswald's sheep-dipping. There is no other reason for Roscoe to have an undocumented BYP and a matching cutout from another shot of Oswald's backyard in his possession. Maybe a LNer can enlighten me.

Did you know that Roscoe White was in the same military division as Lee Harvey Oswald, the 1st Marine Air Wing? Roscoe's wife Geneva swears he and Oswald were friends.  He was also good friends with Jack Ruby. In the fall of 1963 Geneva worked for a few weeks as a hostess in Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. Roscoe even confessed to his involvement in the Big Event in his journal which his son Ricky claimed was confiscated by the FBI.

To prove the BYPs are all authentic, you need to examine their negatives, of which only 2 exist. But why were they cut from the reel? So you couldn't determine whether they came from the same  reel, of course.

Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.

[Jack Trojan]

Dartmouth College did an extensive analysis on all the backyard photos a few years back and determined all of them to be authentic and not manipulated in any form.

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

[Walt Cakebread]

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A  &  133c

[Jack Trojan]

Not sure what it means but......A retired DPD detective (Rusty Livingston) had two BY photos in an old brief case which he gave to his nephew 28 years after the coup d etat.... Those two photos were CE 133A  &  133c

What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!

[Rick Plant]

Didn't you start this thread with the same comment a few pages ago? What Dartmouth concluded was that there were no obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any. They couldn't determine which photos were authentic without examining all the negatives. There was only 1 photo they could claim was not manipulated and that was CE 133b. The negative for that photo exists so I assume they compared them and found no differences.

But what about the money shot, CE 133a? No negative = no authentication. The photos could have easily been manipulated then re-photographed and the negative would match the positive exactly and Dartmouth would declare it was authentic. However, I don't think the photos were manipulated anyway. They were just obviously staged and CE 133a was not taken with the Imperial Reflex camera. Also, the DPD were up to their eyeballs re every aspect of the BYPs.

Yes, I was replying to your previous post. 

There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.               

[Walt Cakebread]

What it means is very significant. The DPD must have had the negatives for both photos to be able to make copies of them. What did the DPD do with those negatives and why was CE 133c never admitted into evidence? What more does anyone need before accepting that the DPD were sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs? I mean, come on!

Yes, I agree Mr T.... and I believe that 133c is the photo that Fritz displayed to Lee on Saturday 11/23/63.    And We know that the DPD were "experimenting" with 133c......   Someone 25-30 years ago made the point that the DPD had a BY photo that had the figure of " Lee Oswald " cut out of it .....and that photo was the one that had the figure in the pose seen in 133c.

The DPD explained that they had gone to the Neeley street address to take some photos and attempt to verify that that was the site where the BY photos ( CE 133A & B ) were taken.   At that time just days after the coup d e'tat, nobody knew about 133c, and yet the DPD used the pose of the figure in 133c.  Proof that the DPD had 133c  and were doing "something"  with it ( perhaps creating a photo that shows Lee Oswald with the alleged murder weapon)  The fact that Rusty Livingston had a copy of 133c verifies Ricky Whites ( Ricky was Roscoe Whites' son )claim that the DPD had 133c and created it to frame Lee Oswald.

[Jack Trojan]

Yes, I was replying to your previous post. 

There were two studies done in 2009 and 2010 that still left questions about the lighting and the shadow that could have been manipulated on Oswald's photos. The last study was done by Dartmouth about 5 years ago that addressed those issues and concerns. They used 3D model computer graphics to determine that there was no manipulation in the photos and that Oswald's awkward pose was indeed authentic. The final verdict refutes the idea that there was any manipulation or the photos were phony to begin with. That's the evidence that came from a respectable University that performed an unbiased study of the evidence. I'm just putting it out there what was determined through photo and 3D model analysis. People can choose whether to believe it or not. But that is what was determined through forensic photo analysis.               

Dartmouth probably had a respectable team of forensic photo analysts looking at the photo(s), however, being a photogrammetrist myself, I know the limitations they faced with 3D modelling. The algorithms can only detect a sloppy job and can only identify content that doesn't fit the model. But they can't detect any superimpositions if the scaling, color, composition and resolution are accurate. The absence of mistakes doesn't make it authentic. So take Dartmouth's analysis with a grain of salt because they were only looking for obvious signs of editing. Not a useless analysis, but inconclusive at best, otherwise, incomplete. You need the negatives to authenticate anything. And even then.

That said, I buy their conclusions that the photos weren't edited because they didn't need to be. People assume they were edited because of the gross differences between 133a and 133b. Oswald's head becomes enormous and in focus. Dartmouth must have concluded that Oswald's head was outside the "sweet spot" of the lens for all shots except for 133a, which accounted for the distortion. What they should have done was compare the spherical aberration for all the photos and look for anomalies. It would soon become apparent that 133a stands out like a sore thumb and does not match the others. Why didn't Dartmouth investigate whether all the photos where shot with the same camera/lens and analyse the negative for 133a? Oh, right, the DPD (cough, cough) lost it along with all the others. If the BYPs don't represent a smoking gun implicating the DPD in the Big Event, then I'll eat a bug.