New Analysis of Oswald’s Backyard Photo – JFK Assassination

reply to post by ziggystar60


Those are great observations Ziggy. When it comes to the JFK assassination the plot just seems to thicken even if it happened decades ago.

So the guy could have had a beer in his hand and a completely different weapon? Was he a hunter or did any hunting? That picture could have been take the day before deer season for all we know. Nice work what ever the outcome.

reply to post by Hugo Chavez


hi - just a cursory glance at your analysis , reveals what i take to be a fatal flaw in your measurements

namely , DEPTH

please look at mr stikman :

as mr stikman demonstrates - an object held at forearms lengh from the torso , CANNOT be compared to corpse height - unless you take the forearm length into consideration

mr oswald clearly holds the object @ fore arm lenght

appologies for the poor quality mr stick man - but when it gets light - i will photograph myself with a 30cm ruler held against my abdemon - and at forearms lenght - it does make a difference

I have not read the other posts on this thread. I'm short on time to do so at the moment. JFK was assassinated for two reasons: He was to abolish the criminal Federal Reserve 'System' and he was to expose and put down the CIA and NSA operated illegal drug operations operating in Afghanistan (poppy or heroine) and coc aine (Columbia). These operations continue to rake in the doe today in these countries. For example, in southern Columbia, coca, unprocessed is openly used as currency. Most in southern Columbia don't even use currency, but rather coca.

There is too much BS floating around. People need to become more aware of reality and the 'authorities' need to end the hypocripsy if they are to be taken serious as an 'authority'. I've had enough!

These drugs fund many operations of which most are unaware of. Money laundering schemes (of which I don't care to get into here) are the means of avoiding the 'authorities'.

I don't personally have an issue with naturally grown drugs such as marijuana, shrooms and peyote. I personally believe they are beneficial in privacy, not while on the job. They have been used for 1000's of years for many reasons and many doctors, judges, lawyers and others of influence continue to use them as it is their 'inherent' and natural right to do so.

On the other hand, man-made drugs, as per 'statutory' law prescribes must be taxed, and should be avoided in that they are man-made to be 'addictive' and are more often than not are destructive to one's mental capacities and every day function.

I'm not a fan of 'statutory' law as they were prescribed to muzzle the will and voice of the people and are often at times at direct confliction to 'natural law', true law, and are in violation to our Bill of Rights as well as Constitutional laws. These 'Statutory laws' were originally put into effect in order that the International bankster cartel controlled NWO were to gain CONTROL over the population at large as well as the drug trade. Meanwhile these 'artificial' authorities of 'law' continue to violate the very laws they claim to uphold.

This is the truth.



[edit on 13-11-2008 by Perseus Apex]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Good find A.A.
Oswald's shadow is a fake. I appears to be going in a different direction that other items in the photo.

O.P.
Thank you for your work towards this find. Starred and flagged.

Originally posted by IvanZana
The hand holding the newspaper looks like he could be holding a hand gun or....


Is this the original?

[edit on 13-11-2008 by IvanZana]

Oh my, this is very critical to the thread, great find there IvanZana.

On second thought, IvanZana, did you photoshop that image or did you find it somewhere?

-Lahara

[edit on 13-11-2008 by TheRandom1]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by TheRandom1]

Op,nice work! I always knew that photo was faked but I never thought about the newspapers,before the CIA and the other intell shops had the means to do this sort of thing I suspect the Military-Industrial complex had this picture made to frame Oswald.

I'm no expert in this field but here are the oddities I see in the photo besides the ones already mentioned.
1. The shadow angles of his nose and the shadow just above his head are different.
2. What happened to the shadow from the post behind him? It should be visible below his fingers holding the rifle.
3. The fuzzy shadows on the fence behind and to the right
are from what?
4. The shadow in the oval I placed to the right of his head looks odd.
5. Would his right ear have that much sun on it if the other shadows are correct?

I've had to post anonymously cause all attempts keep coming up "wrong password."
muundoggie

Interesting read. Good research!

IRM

[edit on 14/11/08 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by DocMoreau

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hugo, never mind the paper, look at Oswald's chin, he did not have a squared off chin it was quite rounded. Its part of his face photo shopped onto some guy with a gun.

Well if you mean 'photo shopped' as in 'photo manipulated in a shop' then maybe...

Remember that Photoshop did not exist in 1963...

Photoshop 1.0 was released in 1990 for Macintosh exclusively.
Releases
Further information: Adobe Photoshop release history
Continual revisions were made to Photoshop, with new versions released in the following years. In November 1992, a Microsoft Windows port of version 2.0 was released, and a year later it was ported to the SGI IRIX and Sun Solaris platforms. In September 1994, version 3.0 was released, which introduced layers and tabbed palettes

en.wikipedia.org...


Interesting..... Photoshop 2.0 comes out in 1992. The Government decides to hide the rest of the Warren Commission for 25 more years, in 1992....

DocMoreau

back when I started in photography I was studying for a commerical arts degree. What we could do with masking, burning, dodging etc to manipulate a photograph was pretty extensive without any computer aid. All those things we used were in use in before Kennedy was killed.

Jim Marrs and Jack White believe that the person whose body was used to fake the Oswald backyard photos was a Dallas policemen named Roscoe White. There is more than one reason to think so. The details are in the video linked above.

One of the reasons is the bony protrusion near the right wrist of "Oswald" in the photos. Apparently Roscoe White had broken his wrist at some time and had such a protrusion. There is a photo believed to be of White and Oswald together with a couple of other marines shown in the video. You can see the bump on White's wrist in the photo.

White did photographic work for the Dallas police and I believe another of the backyard photos was found among his possessions after his death. He died while trying to arrest someone at a motel I believe. I'm not sure of detail here, but it might be possible that his death is one of the questionable ones which followed JFK's assassination.

Originally posted by TylerKing
I always thought his head looked a little big in the famous photo, here's a comparison of head size to height. It isn't exact obviously, but it's a big difference. I even gave the right photo with the smaller head some leeway but it still came out wrong.

Forgot to mention I straightened out the right photo, the original was leaning and that affects height.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by TylerKing]

this is one of the things I also noticed, that his head looked rather large for his body. One of the things I did several years back to check this was to guage his head size to approx shoulder width. I hit a dead end in that direction because the ratio was pretty much the same as the photos of Oswald taken before he was killed. He had a bit of a large head for his frame. and notice his thick neck also corresponts to both the backyard photo and the arrest photo.

Maybe i am being a little ignorant, but isn't it obvious that the head is pasted right on someone else's body?? The way the neck lines up with the rest of the body does not look natural at all!
Especially the part from neck to shoulders.

Sorry OP for using your image i am in a hurry and yours has great contrast.

Originally posted by fatdad
the shoes oswald is wearing in the picture would increase his height by 1 inch to 5 foot 10 inches as he was measured to be 5 foot 9 inches in the autopsy room .. all body's are measured naked....

] True but the measurement is very close. Accounting for a small degree of difference due to perspective against a scale that is not in perspective should be factored on small differences. I'll do some more work in this area in the coming days to check. The exciting thing for me is the accidental paper width discovery independently bringing the height of Oswald almost exactly in line with the data. Before when we were all going off of a paper width of 11"for the paper and the known rifle lengths to determine the height of the man in the photo, his height turned out to be not even remotely close to 5'9.

Originally posted by jhotrod
The more i look at those photos the stranger they appear to me.

Why is he standing in that awkward position. The center of gravity in his body is seemingly beyond his right foot. He should topple, at least in the picture where he holds the papers to his chest! His head looks huge in this picture.

I can somehow accept the pose in the picture where he places the rifle on his hip. But that picture has this really strange small head on him, the photographer has moved a little closer, while he moved a little bit back so he should look the same! The proportions seem different.

But the strangest thing is, while Oswald (?) looks quite different in both pics, the surrounding looks exactly the same. How can that be?

That too is interesting; the center of gravity observation is actually one of the first criticisms of the photo and has been debated pretty heavy.

Originally posted by IvanZana
The hand holding the newspaper looks like he could be holding a hand gun or....


Is this the original?

[edit on 13-11-2008 by IvanZana]

Very cool photo, I don't know if that is the original or if that is an example someone made of what he could be holding, but this is in line with my current thinking. I believe he probably was holding newspapers in one hand but not a rifle in the other or not the same rifle. just speculation though.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Hugo Chavez

 

hi - just a cursory glance at your analysis , reveals what i take to be a fatal flaw in your measurements

namely , DEPTH

please look at mr stikman :

as mr stikman demonstrates - an object held at forearms lengh from the torso , CANNOT be compared to corpse height - unless you take the forearm length into consideration

mr oswald clearly holds the object @ fore arm lenght

appologies for the poor quality mr stick man - but when it gets light - i will photograph myself with a 30cm ruler held against my abdemon - and at forearms lenght - it does make a difference

Thanks, I did do some initial calculations on the likely offset do to perspective through observation and testing and posted them on the first page to this thread. I will do some more work in this area and post the tests and results.

Originally posted by Sfen Senterra
Maybe i am being a little ignorant, but isn't it obvious that the head is pasted right on someone else's body?? The way the neck lines up with the rest of the body does not look natural at all!
Especially the part from neck to shoulders.

Sorry OP for using your image i am in a hurry and yours has great contrast.

You're right, it does look like that but then look at the police photo I posted above your original post, the same oddities with his thick neck attached to a small frame can also be observed.

I received a request to do a cast shadow contrast analysis to determine if there is a shadow for the newspaper and there is one. I’m glad I did because it helps to back up that he was indeed holding a paper. Just probably not The Militant and The Worker.

I also received a request for this to be moved to premium but I don't know what that means and couldn't reply until I get 20 posts.