Author Topic: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery  (Read 4953 times)


Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3161
  • Skeptic
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2021, 10:00:51 PM »
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?

Offline Chris Bristow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2021, 03:48:19 AM »
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%.

Offline Michael Christopher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2021, 12:42:36 AM »
The photos don't have to be fake as they prove nothing.

LHO obviously was involved in some fringe groups and this photo session could be a part of fitting in with those groups. Or he could have been told to pose for the photos by people setting up, under some guise.

Either way, it doesn't prove he killed or wanted to kill Kennedy. Doesn't prove his innocence either.

To me, they are interesting but not crucial.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2021, 08:35:57 PM »
The photos don't have to be fake as they prove nothing.

LHO obviously was involved in some fringe groups and this photo session could be a part of fitting in with those groups. Or he could have been told to pose for the photos by people setting up, under some guise.

Either way, it doesn't prove he killed or wanted to kill Kennedy. Doesn't prove his innocence either.

To me, they are interesting but not crucial.
Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?

I think that's significant.

The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.

Offline Michael Christopher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2021, 11:27:10 PM »
Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?

I think that's significant.

The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.

I think we're basically saying the same thing from different angles.

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2021, 11:43:08 AM »
The HSCA Photographic Panel studied CE-133A, CE-133B, the negative of CE-133B and Oswald's camera (among many other items related to the photos, such as first generation prints of CE-133C).

The panel first performed a visual inspection of the photos, by use magnifiers and microscopes.  During this inspection, the panel made enlargements of the photos using various exposures and ranges of contrast.  These enlargements produced prints which ranged from very light to very dark.  In the darkest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the lighter prints.  In the lightest parts of the photos, the detail could be seen best in the darker prints.  The panel felt this was the best opportunity of detecting any evidence of falsification anywhere in the pictures.

The panel also used digital image processing to determine if there were any unnatural edge lines or differences in grain structure or contrast.

Both photos (CE-133a and CE-133B) were also studied by the panel using stereoscopic techniques, which allowed the panel to see the photos in 3-D.  This method will detect forgeries in prints because it produces a photographic copy of a photograph.
 When viewed in stereo, these copies will not project a three-dimensional image unless made from different viewpoints along the same axis.  Retouching of the original photo can be detected when two photos depicting the same scene are viewed in stereo, the retouched print will not be on the same plane in which it should be lying; the items seen in the photo will be either in front of the plane or behind the plane.  Because of this, when viewed stereoscopically, fakery can easily be detected.

One final method the panel used to examine the photos was photogrammetrically.

Using all of these methods, the HSCA Photographic Panel detected no signs of forgery.

Online Otto Beck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
Re: Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2021, 12:50:56 PM »
Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK. Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle. For what purpose? Why did he think he needs this type of rifle? He didn't do any hunting. So, what's the purpose for it?

I think that's significant.

The other significance for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald. He's holding up radical publications. He's posing in black, He has his pregnant wife photographing him. He signs one copy for his daughter? He has little money. He spends it on a rifle? A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos. I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so; but we need some evidence, some corroboration for that speculation.


Photographic experts for the HSCA said the rifle in the photos in the one found in the TSBD and that was used to murder JFK.


Although very weak sauce.

Even if one wants to dismiss that conclusion it does show that he owned a high powered, albeit inexpensive, rifle.

Even without dismissing that conclusion it shows nothing in relation to ownership.

For what purpose?


Question irrelevant unless you can support your premise that he owned it.

Why did he think he needs this type of rifle?

See above, false premise.

He didn't do any hunting.

Prove he didn't plan to go hunting.

So, what's the purpose for it?

False premise, see above.

I think that's significant.

Your thinking is not based on evidence so it's entirely irrelevant.

The other significance

There can't be another as your first was unfounded.

for me is that it shows the radicalism and erratic nature of Oswald.

Let's hope you can back up that claim...

He's holding up radical publications.

So?

He's posing in black,

So?

He has his pregnant wife photographing him.

Apart from the pregnancy, there's no supporting evidence for your claim.

He signs one copy for his daughter?

Inconclusive.

He has little money.

So?

He spends it on a rifle?

No supporting evidence.

A $20 rifle today would be about $160. For a poor person that's not an insignificant sum. These are all very odd actions.

There's no supporting evidence for the purchase you imply.

There is no evidence that he was ordered to pose for the photos.

There is no evidence that he wasn't ordered to pose for the photos.

I mean we can imagine all sorts of reasons for doing so;

Or not doing so.

but we need some evidence,

That would be nice!

some corroboration for that speculation.

Unfortunately, all you have provided so far is speculation.

Glad I could correct your misconceptions.

 

Mobile View