The Backyard Photos Have Insomnia

[Steve Howsley]

Oswald wore a watch in the USSR...looks like-
Can we find this routine stateside?
When did he stop using a wristwatch and start wearing a bracelet?

Why is this even important? The issue is just another line into nothingness.

I can offer two possible reasons for wearing the bracelet and not a watch straight off the top of my head.

1. The strap broke and he was too cheap to have it replaced.

2. Maybe he started wearing the bracelet once he opened the gift box and saw it inside just before giving Marina a punch in the mouth a peck on the cheek.

[Walt Cakebread]

Why is this even important? The issue is just another line into nothingness.

I can offer two possible reasons for wearing the bracelet and not a watch straight off the top of my head.

1. The strap broke and he was too cheap to have it replaced.

2. Maybe he started wearing the bracelet once he opened the gift box and saw it inside just before giving Marina a punch in the mouth a peck on the cheek.

Steve you really should think a bit more rationally and refrain from allowing your unmitigated bias against Lee  Oswald from blinding you to the truth.

[Jerry Freeman]

Steve you really should think a bit more rationally and refrain from allowing your unmitigated bias against Lee  Oswald from blinding you to the truth.

Apparently trying to convince himself of something.

[Jack Trojan]

Here is my 1st of 5 smoking gun questions for the LNers re the BYPs, each will be more uncomfortable for them than the prev:

Setup

March 31, 1963: Marina takes at least 5 infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO and burns 1. (Originally she recalled only taking 1).

April 5, 1963: Date written on back of 5"x5" print of CE 133-A allegedly written by Oswald and given to George de Mohrenschildt.

The two prints originally found among Oswald?s possessions were described by the HSCA panel as ?drugstore or photofinisher prints because they appeared to have been produced on the type of commercial photo printing machine used by photofinishers for camera stores, drugstores and mass-produced prints.? The prints are small 3?x3?, with a white border and markings consistent with an automated commercial machine.

The de Mohrenschildt print is larger 5?x5? and described as ?probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens? due to its increased resolution. The panel notes that ?the entire negative area is printed? (showing more picture than the cropped ?drugstore? print), and that the print had yellowed, ?indicating that it was not adequately fixed or washed during the development process?.

So correct me if I'm wrong, Oswald had the film roll developed in a drugstore, cut up the negatives into single frames and had at least 1 print made of CE 133-A in a photo-lab, wrote an inscription on the back and gave it to his handler George de Mohrenschildt all in less than 5 days.

My question

What drugstore back in 63 had a turnaround time of a couple of days so that Oswald could take the negative to a photo-lab to create de Mohrenschildt's print, which also had a turnaround time of only a couple of days?

[Jerry Freeman]

My question

What drugstore back in 63 had a turnaround time of a couple of days ...?

JT..I would believe that if something as famous as the backyard pictures had been processed at a commercial lab...they would have been recognized by some employee somewhere down the line.
They were put together to vilify Oswald before the public.

[Steve Howsley]

No one has explained why the watch and bracelet are important. That's what was questioned here. I say it's not an issue at all. What are the deeply mysterious possibilities?

You've got empty questions that can't be answered definitely which you think is evidence of what? It amounts to three parts of SFA.

[Jack Trojan]

How does making up a name make a difference?,
Someone somewhere has to apply advanced scientific principles to current methodology to create a more visual representation and that person is me!

JohnM

You're just someone who found the "fade" feature on your image editor. Otherwise, exactly what scientific principles to current methodology are you advancing? You do realize that every interleaved frame is a cheat, right? Every frame between the 2 originals is interpolated/interleaved and not real. All these morphing algorithms look good but are they meaningful?

For example, the 2 photos found in LHO's possession, CE 133-A,B were taken with the same camera at the same approximate distance from the camera by [insert photographer], correct? I used your fade technique to scale Oswald's head to the same size for both photos. But look how his body becomes the Hulk in 133-A. The head/body proportions are out, big time.



Question 2 of 5

What do you attribute this head/body proportion discrepancy to: perspective (explain), lens distortion, different lenses, or jiggery-pokery? You're the self proclaimed image expert here, what say you?