"ghost of oswald" picture info request
Flindor
picture of the backyard photo on page 170. In it Oswald is missing.
Does anybody know anything about this picture? Where did it come from?
It gives the impression of being a step in the process of making a phoney
picture. Thanks for any responses.
Joe Backes
Talked." There should be some information in there about it.
Joe Backes
Dreitzes
>From: fli...@aol.com (Flindor)
>Date: 5/22/99 10:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990522224015...@ng66.aol.com>
The Origin of the Oswald "Ghost" Picture
Take a look at the tree branches visible over the wall in back of the various
"backyard" photos. CE 133-A, 133-B and 133-C show the trees to be thick with
leaves (consistent with the testimony that they were taken in the spring) while
the "ghost picture" or cut-out version and the unretouched reenactment photo
(top left, TKOAP, p. 170) show the tree to be virtually bare (consistent with
the testimony that they were taken after the assassination, in the winter).
Now look at the unretouched reenactment photo (top left) and try to view it for
the two dimensional image it is; in other words, try to tune out the depth in
the photo. (Painters in the fine arts are generally trained to do this when
painting from life.) Find the small, dark, rectangular shape located directly
over the lawman's head at about an eleven o'clock or eleven-thirty position. It
appears to be a window that has been bricked over on the neighboring house.
Found it?
Okay. Now look at the obviously retouched reenactment photo (TKOAP, p. 170, top
right). Find the same bricked-over window in this picture. Notice that it's not
in the same position in relation to the rearmost wooden post of the staircase.
The window appears lower, and its left edge is slightly obscured by the post.
(It's also been unnaturally darkened like many other details in this photo, and
the tree branches have been retouched to look fuller. These details aren't
important; they were apparently just done to make the retouched version LOOK as
retouched as possible.) The camera lens has shifted slightly to the right and
is higher.Everybody with me so far?
Okay. Now look at the same bricked-over window in the cut-out version or "ghost
picture" (TKOAP, p. 170, center). The window is farther right and higher in
relation to the post than in the obviously retouched reenactment photo (but
slightly lower than in the unretouched reenactment photo). In other words, the
camera lens is in a different position in each picture, and we can judge this
by certain "landmarks" in the pictures themselves.
Is this important? Only if you want to know where the "ghost picture" came
from.
Turn to page 168 and look at the large photo in the center, the wide-angle
backyard view. Find the bricked-over window. Notice it appears to be in the
exact same position as in the "ghost picture." Also notice on page 168 the
unusual shadow that darkens a little less than the top third of the roughly
four-foot-tall bush towards the right, the same bush that is visible at the
right of all the "backyard" photos. This shadow looks unnatural and could
conceivably have been retouched already, but that's not important.
Notice that nothing even vaguely like this shadow appears in CE 133-A, -B and
-C, although it is similar to the one in the unretouched reenactment photo.
Okay, still with me? This shadowed area of the bush is partly cut from the
"ghost picture," but careful study of the details of the bush that are still
visible around the edge of the excision. The bush appears to have been
artifically darkened just below the "ghost" image of Oswald's left arm (on the
right to the viewer -- the arm holding the rifle). However, as far as the
natural details go, this appears to be the same exact photograph as the
wide-angle photo in the center of page 168. From some of the odd minute details
that are visible, I can state confidently that the photo that was cut to make
the "ghost picture" was one of two things: It was either the exact same
photograph as the one in the center of page 168, or a second photograph taken
at approximately the same time, with the camera situated on a tripod, keeping
the angle precisely the same. In all probability, it is the same photograph as
the one on TKOAP, page 168.
Obviously, the "ghost" image was cut out to approximate Oswald's figure in CE
133-C, the one that turned out in the Whites' possession. (There is also -- for
reasons I don't know -- a white line running almost vertically, angled just
slightly towards the left, just to the left of the "Oswald" cut-out.)
I could only guess why this cut-out was made. The common-sense explanation is
that it was an intermediate step in the creation of the police reenactment
photo. There is no way I know to prove or disprove this. The photo was only
found something like ten years ago, which means it could have been created long
after the assassination for unknown reasons.
But one thing is clear: The "ghost image" has absolutely nothing to do with the
alleged forgery of any of the "backyard" photos.
Dave Reitzes
Russ Burr
says...
Great answer Dave, the bottom line was that the backyard photos we're not
faked to frame Oswald. The photographic panel of the HSCA proved that they
were not fakes...and if someone doesn't believe that than why did Marina
tell me last summer that she took the pictures??? Despite her claims of
his innocence she told me without hestitation that Oswald asked her to do
it....
Russ
Flindor
>faked to frame Oswald. The photographic panel of the HSCA proved that they
>were not fakes...and if someone doesn't believe that than why did Marina
>tell me last summer that she took the pictures??? Despite her claims of
>his innocence she told me without hestitation that Oswald asked her to do
>it....
>
>Russ
A quote from groden's book, pg 168 "the backyard photos were subjected to
careful analysis by photography experts before and during the comittee's
work and were found to be composite pictures: photos of Oswald's head
pasted atop someone else's body. The committee, however, claimed that
they were genuine."
If this is true (and I some misgivings about Groden) then the HSCA knew
that they were phoney so why not just say so? The problem with this is
that admitting any kind of trikery in the evidence would open a pandora's
box of questions about all the rest of the evidence. The HSCA went out on
a limb with some evidence, like the acoustical stuff, but to state that
ANY of the evidence is fake would require far more guts than they had. The
photos themselves, though, remind me of the kind of picture you often see
about UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster in the national enquirer.
Dreitzes
>From: fli...@aol.com (Flindor)
>Date: 5/24/99 11:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990524234837...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
>
>>Great answer Dave, the bottom line was that the backyard photos we're not
>>faked to frame Oswald. The photographic panel of the HSCA proved that they
>>were not fakes...and if someone doesn't believe that than why did Marina
>>tell me last summer that she took the pictures??? Despite her claims of
>>his innocence she told me without hestitation that Oswald asked her to do
>>it....
>>
>>Russ
>
>A quote from groden's book, pg 168 "the backyard photos were subjected to
>careful analysis by photography experts before and during the comittee's
>work and were found to be composite pictures: photos of Oswald's head
>pasted atop someone else's body. The committee, however, claimed that
>they were genuine."
>
>If this is true
It's not. Read the HSCA's actual report.
(and I some misgivings about Groden) then the HSCA knew
>that they were phoney so why not just say so?
See above.
The problem with this is
>that admitting any kind of trikery in the evidence would open a pandora's
>box of questions about all the rest of the evidence.
Two words: "grain analysis."
The HSCA went out on
>a limb with some evidence, like the acoustical stuff, but to state that
>ANY of the evidence is fake would require far more guts than they had. The
>photos themselves, though, remind me of the kind of picture you often see
>about UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster in the national enquirer.
If you can refute the HSCA's grain analysis, which proves the photos not to be
composites, you'll be a hero to many, especially given how such photo "experts"
as Groden have been ducking that issue for over two decades now.
Dave Reitzes
jerrymac
Dreitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990524034109...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
The photo wasn't retouched. It was taken with a flash, hence the
differences in appearance.
No, it's not. But you can't tell from Groden's book because the ghost
photo is cropped. Check out the photos in Oswald Talked pgs. 384-385, and
pay close attention to the corner of the shed, and then compare it to the
center photo on pg.168 Groden. Also, disregard the bottom photo on that
page, it's not real.
>From some of the odd minute details
> that are visible, I can state confidently that the photo that was cut to
make
> the "ghost picture" was one of two things: It was either the exact same
> photograph as the one in the center of page 168, or a second photograph
taken
> at approximately the same time, with the camera situated on a tripod,
keeping
> the angle precisely the same. In all probability, it is the same
photograph as
> the one on TKOAP, page 168.
>
> Obviously, the "ghost" image was cut out to approximate Oswald's figure in
CE
> 133-C, the one that turned out in the Whites' possession. (There is
also -- for
> reasons I don't know -- a white line running almost vertically, angled
just
> slightly towards the left, just to the left of the "Oswald" cut-out.)
The white lines are IMNSHO the edges of an acetate overlay used to
superimpose the ghost image onto the empty backyard photo. There is also
a second version without the white lines.
I don't see how you can say something is *obvious* when you don't have all
the facts. Someone has admitted creating the ghost photo -- DPD Detective
Bobby Brown. Allow me to suggest First Day Evidence and Oswald Talked.
>
> I could only guess why this cut-out was made. The common-sense explanation
is
> that it was an intermediate step in the creation of the police reenactment
> photo. There is no way I know to prove or disprove this. The photo was
only
> found something like ten years ago, which means it could have been created
long
> after the assassination for unknown reasons.
> But one thing is clear: The "ghost image" has absolutely nothing to do
with the
> alleged forgery of any of the "backyard" photos.
Again, you're jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.
According to Brown, the ghost photo was done shortly after the
re-enactment photos, not long after the assassination. Pay close
attention to where Brown got the copy of 133-C from.
And nothing is clear about these photos.
jerrymac
"I have already written to you about the photogrammetry of the backyard
pictures and after several rereadings STILL feel that this should be
re-edited, re-calculated, or destroyed. It's a bomb-shell and should not
be published in its present form."
House photo panel member David B. Eisendrath to Mickey Goldsmith, HSCA
senior staff counsel.
Flindor
question - has anyone ever made a composite photo that passed the grain
analysis? If so, how could you do it? I am not a photography expert but
from what I've heard in the past is that if a copy (or several generations
of copies) is made of a composite photo the grain analysis will show less
evidence of being fake. Just an idea.
My whole point on the original post was about who would make this and
where and when etc. I find it remarkable that someone sat down and
obtained these photos and then performing a cut-out on it. A cut-out that
closely resembles LHO. Why would anyone do this? What could it serve?
And once done, what was supposed to be done with it? I have no idea, but
like I said before it makes a strong case for fakery in the backyard
photos - whether or not it is the ACTUAL interim photo. Perhaps it was
just a test? Who knows...
Dreitzes
>From: fli...@aol.com (Flindor)
>Date: 5/25/99 3:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990525153532...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
>
>grain analysis.
>
>question - has anyone ever made a composite photo that passed the grain
>analysis? If so, how could you do it? I am not a photography expert but
>from what I've heard in the past is that if a copy (or several generations
>of copies) is made of a composite photo the grain analysis will show less
>evidence of being fake. Just an idea.
You don't think Robert Groden would have mentioned that in his book?
>
>My whole point on the original post was about who would make this and
>where and when etc. I find it remarkable that someone sat down and
>obtained these photos and then performing a cut-out on it. A cut-out that
>closely resembles LHO. Why would anyone do this? What could it serve?
I don't understand your confusion, Flindor. You can see in Robert Groden's
book that composite photographs were made by law enforcement officials for
comparison purposes. This was done specifically in response to the charges
that the backyard photos were fake.
>And once done, what was supposed to be done with it? I have no idea,
They were used to refute the arguments of forgery. That should be pretty
obvious to you, even from Groden's book alone. Why not consider reading
the HSCA's conclusions instead of speculating?
but
>like I said before it makes a strong case for fakery in the backyard
>photos - whether or not it is the ACTUAL interim photo. Perhaps it was
>just a test? Who knows...
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning, Flindor. The HSCA proved the
1963 photographs are not composites, unless you know of some way to refute
the grain analysis. The photographs that puzzle you were not made at the
same time as the backyard photos -- the foliage in the background proves
that.
Why is it you suspect the "ghost photo" was created for any purpose more
sinister than the reenactment photos on page 170 of Groden's book?
Dave Reitzes
jerrymac
Flindor <fli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990525153532...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> grain analysis.
>
> question - has anyone ever made a composite photo that passed the grain
> analysis? If so, how could you do it? I am not a photography expert but
> from what I've heard in the past is that if a copy (or several generations
> of copies) is made of a composite photo the grain analysis will show less
> evidence of being fake. Just an idea.
>
Grain is a characteristic of the film being used, and to a lesser extent,
the developer used to process the film. Faster emulsions have a larger
grain pattern than slower films. Grain becomes an issue as the photograph
is enlarged, essentially because you're enlarging the grain as well as the
image.
Examining the grain pattern can detect a composite photo, but it really
can't prove beyond a doubt that a photo is not a composite. The best it can
do is say that the grain pattern is the same, so it's likely that the photo
is genuine. The House photo panel even admitted that:
Mr. GOLDSMITH. How might evidence of fakery appear on a digital image
processor printout if in fact there had been fakery?
Mr. McCAMY. Well, we should have expected to find a difference in
grain, or over here, we should have expected to find edges that would have
indicated some kind of montage.
Now we did not find any such evidence. That, of course, doesn't prove
that it was not faked, but we are looking for evidence that it was faked,
and we find none. <end>
ritchie linton
>
> Flindor <fli...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990525153532...@ng-bd1.aol.com..
> >
> > question - has anyone ever made a composite photo that passed the grain
> > analysis? If so, how could you do it? I am not a photography expert but
> > from what I've heard in the past is that if a copy (or several generations
> > of copies) is made of a composite photo the grain analysis will show less
> > evidence of being fake. Just an idea.
> >
>
> Grain is a characteristic of the film being used, and to a lesser extent,
> the developer used to process the film. Faster emulsions have a larger
> grain pattern than slower films. Grain becomes an issue as the photograph
> is enlarged, essentially because you're enlarging the grain as well as the
> image.
>
> Examining the grain pattern can detect a composite photo, but it really
> can't prove beyond a doubt that a photo is not a composite. The best it can
> do is say that the grain pattern is the same, so it's likely that the photo
> is genuine. The House photo panel even admitted that:
@@@@@@@@
So if you have the Oswald camera in your custody already, and you use it
to take pictures of the created composite- a photo of a picture made= then
the photo of the picture made is,"likely .....genuine". The HSCA panel
said:
> Mr. GOLDSMITH. How might evidence of fakery appear on a digital image
> processor printout if in fact there had been fakery?
> Mr. McCAMY. Well, we should have expected to find a difference in
> grain, or over here, we should have expected to find edges that would have
> indicated some kind of montage.@@@@
@@@@@@
Which they would have if they had been examing the original montage. But
if they were looking at a photo of the picture image made montage, that
photo would show no edges and no grain difference.They said:
> Now we did not find any such evidence. That, of course, doesn't prove
> that it was not faked, but we are looking for evidence that it was faked,
> and we find none. <end>@@@@
@@@@@
So pretty good fake in that way.Its an old trick. I believe once you
decipher the evidence of the Hidell card, you will see that the theory
says even Oswald used it.
A picture of a picture- simple.
RJ
R2JUDGE
>From: fli...@aol.com (Flindor)
>Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 23:48 EDT
>Message-id: <19990524234837...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
>
>>Great answer Dave, the bottom line was that the backyard photos we're not
>>faked to frame Oswald. The photographic panel of the HSCA proved that they
>>were not fakes...and if someone doesn't believe that than why did Marina
>>tell me last summer that she took the pictures??? Despite her claims of
>>his innocence she told me without hestitation that Oswald asked her to do
>>it....
>>
>>Russ
>
>A quote from groden's book, pg 168 "the backyard photos were subjected to
>careful analysis by photography experts before and during the comittee's
>work and were found to be composite pictures: photos of Oswald's head
>pasted atop someone else's body. The committee, however, claimed that
>they were genuine."
>
>that they were phoney so why not just say so? The problem with this is
>that admitting any kind of trikery in the evidence would open a pandora's
>a limb with some evidence, like the acoustical stuff, but to state that
>ANY of the evidence is fake would require far more guts than they had. The
>photos themselves, though, remind me of the kind of picture you often see
>about UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster in the national enquirer.
>
***Having taken a few photography courses in college and having worked in
post production for Network television shows for over 15 years, I find
nothing that looks composited in the backyard photos.
In any trial there are experts for the defence and experts for the
prosecution/plantif.
They both have an opposing opinion about the same piece of evidence.
that Mr. Grodin can produce several experts that claim the backyard photos
are fake does not make the photos fake.
Several people including experts, claim that the hole in the front of
Kennedy's shirt was made by a scalpel.
For one, clothing is cut off by scissors and is very obvious that the arms
on Kennedy's jacket were cut by scissors. for the other, a scalpel would
make a clean cut. the hole is anything but a clean cut. For third, the
autopsy photo of Kennedy compared with photos of him in shirt and tie in
Dallas show that the top of the collar was above the wound. the bullet had
to traverse the shirt. Therefore, a scalpel could not have made the hole.
An expert can be found that will support any point of view, in spite of
the fact that Marina says she took the pictures- especially in light of
the fact she also now considers him to have been innocent.
***Ron Judge
John McAdams
>>Great answer Dave, the bottom line was that the backyard photos we're not
>>faked to frame Oswald. The photographic panel of the HSCA proved that they
>>were not fakes...and if someone doesn't believe that than why did Marina
>>tell me last summer that she took the pictures??? Despite her claims of
>>his innocence she told me without hestitation that Oswald asked her to do
>>it....
>>
>>Russ
>
>A quote from groden's book, pg 168 "the backyard photos were subjected to
>careful analysis by photography experts before and during the comittee's
>work and were found to be composite pictures: photos of Oswald's head
>pasted atop someone else's body. The committee, however, claimed that
>they were genuine."
>
>If this is true (and I some misgivings about Groden) then the HSCA knew
>that they were phoney so why not just say so?
The other "experts" who said they were faked included a Britisher who
backed off his position when asked to review the HSCA work, and a
Canadian who admitted he had looked at a poor copy for perhaps 20
minutes.
IOW, Groden's kind of experts!
>The problem with this is
>that admitting any kind of trikery in the evidence would open a pandora's
>box of questions about all the rest of the evidence. The HSCA went out on
>a limb with some evidence, like the acoustical stuff, but to state that
>ANY of the evidence is fake would require far more guts than they had. The
>photos themselves, though, remind me of the kind of picture you often see
>about UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster in the national enquirer.
>
Why don't you check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Nobody seems to have read this. Almost everybody seems to have gotten
it filtered through Livingstone and Groden and Jack White.
Which is why you really *do* need to read it.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm