Exposing the Backyard Photos

« Prev
1
Next »

Herbert Blenner
New Member
in fond remembrance

Posts: 0

Exposing the Backyard Photos Jan 15, 2019 13:05:38 GMT -5

Post by Herbert Blenner on Jan 15, 2019 13:05:38 GMT -5

Smoking Papers
by Herbert Blenner | Posted June 3, 2000

A comparison between the backyard photos with the expected knowledge of an ideological defector reveals serious problems.

We should take a close look at the backyard photo. The message was clear; Lee Harvey Oswald was an armed revolutionary. He held a rifle in one hand and communist newspapers in the hand other. No doubt about it, that was the dyslectic Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yet why did Oswald select to display the newspapers of two political parties that had taken the parliamentary path toward socialism. Why blunt the impact of the rifle with newspapers that advocated the ballot? After more than two years in the Soviet Union and countless political meetings in the radio factory in Minsk, Oswald understood the split between the parliamentary and the revolutionary communist parties. Even if Oswald could not find his picture of Castro to complement his rifle, he knew better than to contradict it.

The backyard photo contains an incongruity between its means and ends. It is a reflection of a typically North American view that red is red and no further argument is needed. This prejudice betrays itself and brands the backyard photo as a fraud.

What message would the backyard photo have sent to the French and the Italians? These Europeans had socialists and communists in their coalition governments. The reverberations from the split between the parliamentary and revolutionary communist parties had a significant impact in France and Italy. If any politically conscious and honest person in France or Italy had taken a good look at the backyard photograph and the Oswald described by the Warren Commission Report, they would have concluded the photograph was an attempt to frame Oswald.

The press publicized the backyard photo shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy. This is why the Warren Commission could not bury the backyard photo in one of their twenty-six volumes. One member of the Warren Commission recognized the implications of the backyard photo. Allen Dulles was Director of Central Intelligence when the twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union initiated the spilt between the parliamentary and revolutionary communists. After 1956, the CIA was actively evaluating this split. They examined changes in leadership and policy of all Communist Parties. The CIA gave particular attention to the large and influential Communist Parties of France and Italy. In 1963, the CIA had a full understanding of the how conservatives, liberals, and social-democrats in France and Italy understood the ideological split in the communist camp.

No wonder they retouched the backyard photo in so many different ways.

We have the photo without a crop line and the photo with a crop line. One photo shows a nick in the rifle stock and another does not. Someone understood if you cannot hide an embarrassing message then create distractions.

Herbert Blenner
New Member
in fond remembrance

Posts: 0

Exposing the Backyard Photos Jan 15, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5

Post by Herbert Blenner on Jan 15, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5

Contradictions of the Backyard Photo
by Herbert Blenner | Posted June 4, 2001

Had Oswald known the full contents of the backyard photo, he would not have committed political suicide by sending the picture to New York City.

We have a trail of evidence documenting Oswald's interest in Russian and socialism. While in the marines, Oswald's interest became almost fanatical. These events culminated in his ideological defection to the Soviet Union.

Oswald's defection in 1959, coincided with the worldwide split in the communist movement. In nearly every country, communist parties splintered into mutually antagonistic groups supporting opposite sides in the Sino-Soviet dispute.

The Communist Parties of the Soviet Union did not split. Instead the majority fraction advocating peaceful coexistence conducted an intensive campaign against the minority factions that retained Leninist or Maoist positions. The Soviet leadership likened the minority factions to "Trotskyite bourgeois agents" and "infantile-leftists." Their campaign was so intense, that some leading Moscow publications called for a moderation. Nevertheless, the tone of the campaign was set.

Oswald attended many political meetings at the radio factory in Minsk. Without doubt an ideological defector would have been interested in the Sino-Soviet dispute. In any event, after two years of frequent meetings even the uninterested would have understood that peaceful coexistence meant repudiation of the revolutionary Leninist path.

We have evidence that Oswald understood this aspect of the Sino-Soviet dispute. On three separate occasions Oswald differentiated between Marxists and Leninists. When Aline Mosby asked Oswald in 1959 if he were a communist, Oswald replied "I am a Marxist." During interviews in New Orleans, they asked Oswald the same question he said I'm a Marxist. On November 24, 1963, Captain Fritz asked Oswald, "Are you a Communist?" Oswald answered, "No, I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist."

Oswald subscribed to The Worker and The Militant during the spring of 1963. Both papers supported peaceful coexistence. The Worker advertised English language translations of the speeches of Khrushchev on peaceful existence. Editorials in The Worker denounced the Maoists as irresponsible infantile leftists.

The Militant diversified their editorial comments with criticism of Soviet bureaucracy and ridicule of the revolutionary "ultra-leftists." Occasionally, The Militant would advertise a work by Leon Trotsky.

Any reader of The Worker or The Militant would have understood the ideological inclinations of these publications. Oswald as a thirty-month resident of the Soviet Union would have understood the depth of the animosity between the Soviets and the Trotskyists.

Allegedly Oswald sent letters and the backyard photos to the Communist and the Socialist Workers Parties. These letters were friendly, polite and amiable. Obviously the author designed the letters to endear himself to the communists. The photographs on the other hand were surly, offensive, and antagonistic.

Showing someone they cannot keep their own house in order is the surest way to alienate them. This is exactly what the backyard photos did. By displaying newspapers from the descendants of the Stalinists and the Trotskyists these photographs reminded the advocates of unity of their first major division. After opening this old wound, the backyard photo poured salt into the injury. The backyard photo counterpoised two newspapers that supported peaceful coexistence with two guns that were the symbols of the revolutionary Leninist and Maoist factions.

If someone intended to produce the most inflammatory photograph then the backyard photo would have challenged their efforts. One photo taunted the advocates of unity that their fusion movement fissioned twice.

Herbert Blenner
New Member
in fond remembrance

Posts: 0

Exposing the Backyard Photos Jan 15, 2019 13:06:50 GMT -5

Post by Herbert Blenner on Jan 15, 2019 13:06:50 GMT -5

Vanishing Point Analysis and Synthesis
by Herbert Blenner | Posted on June 2, 2001 as "Exposing The Photographic Panel."

The photographic panel put salesmanship ahead of scholarship and replaced analysis by synthesis. The photographic panel of the HSCA evaluated the backyard photos. They employed various photo analytic techniques. However, their vanishing point tests produced their most compelling evidence.

In their report, the photographic panels gave a brief description of the vanishing point technique. (414) The panel correctly stated the necessity of a distant source of illumination. However, the panel had nothing to say on the second requirement of the illuminating light source.

Following the partial theoretical explanation of the vanishing point technique the photographic panel considered the methodology. (416) Here the photographic panel assumed they could draw a line through an object and the corresponding point on the object shadow. This technique, discounting measurement errors, requires the shadow has a razor-sharp edge.

When the illuminating source has no perceivable dimensions then the transition at the shadow edge is razor-sharp. We can understand this phenomenon by viewing the source of illumination from the edge of the shadow. The slightest movement at the shadow edge either totally uncovers or completely conceals the illuminating source. In other words, a razor-sharp shadow edge requires a point source of illumination.

With a finite source of illumination, such as the sun, the shadow edges are diffused. As one moves across the shadow edge, they see a changing portion of the illuminating source. This is the technicality the photographic panel overlooked in their theoretical description of the vanishing point technique.

The sharpness of the shadow edge is critical to the vanishing point analysis. When a shadow edge is diffused, the direction of a line from a point on an object through its corresponding point on the shadow edge is uncertain. Lines drawn from different objects through the corresponding points of their diffused shadow edges will fall within some small area. More than two lines will never meet at a single point.

The photographic panel found their lines met at the vanishing point. They declared the shadows were directionally consistent. (417) Then pompously proclaimed the vanishing point analysis settles the issue. (418) On this point, I have no objection.

Had the photographic panel faithfully analyzed the backyard photos they would have found their lines passing through some small area. This result would show directionally consistency of the shadows. Nevertheless, the photographic panel substituted synthesis for analysis. They drew their lines through a fictitious vanishing point that intersected points on objects and fell near the diffused shadow edges.

The photographic panel cheated on the vanishing point test. They did this under the mistaken belief that directionally consistency of shadows from the sun required lines to met at a common point. Thanks to a technical oversight, the photographic panel gives us proof they mishandled the evidence.
Source: Volume VI of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The following references are from section B, Photograph Authentication
(414) The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point" perspective is widely known with respect to artists and applies to photography as well. (178) This concept simply means that parallel lines in object space are depicted as converging lines on the image which will eventually meet at a point. Because the Sun's distance from Earth is so great that it may be considered infinitely distant, it follows that, in any sunlit scene, lines from objects to their shadows are parallel. When these parallel lines are pictured the corresponding lines on the picture converge at a point known as the vanishing point. A picture of parallel railroad tracks provides a good illustration; the tracks are seen to converge to a point at the horizon.

(415) In the case of the railroad tracks, the vanishing point is in the picture. This may not always occur. If the lines are perpendicular to the camera axis (the line from the center of the lens to the center of the film), the images of the lines will not appear to converge at a point, on the picture. The vanishing point may then be considered to be at infinity. In other cases, where the parallel lines are not perpendicular to the camera axis, the vanishing point is either in the picture or some finite distance outside it.

(416) When this is the case, the directional consistency of shadows may be tested by drawing lines from images of objects to the corresponding points on the images of their shadows, and then extending these lines (beyond the actual picture if necessary) to see if they are meet at one point. If the lines do meet at one point, they are parallel and therefore consistent. If they do not met at one point, they are not parallel and consequently are not consistent.

(417) When this analysis was applied to the backyard prints by drawing lines from a part of the stairway, the butt of Oswald's pistol, the muzzle of the rifle, Oswald's nose, et cetera, to the corresponding points on the shadows cast by these objects, the lines all met at the vanishing point. (See figs. IV-34 and IV-35, JFK exhibits Nos. F-387 and F-388.) Accordingly, the shadows were determined to he directionally consistent. A vanishing point analysis on 133C(Stovall) also yielded consistent results.

(418) While the vanishing point analysis settles this issue, comparisons between shadows depicted in different backyard pictures cannot be validly made unless the illumination, precise geometry of the head and the exact location of the camera are considered. It is for this reason that the allegation of fakery, based on the observation that a shadow has not moved between pictures despite movement of the object casting it, is fundamentally misconceived. The argument fails to account for the compensating effect of movement by the camera.(179) This principle is illustrated in the RIT Technical Report, pars. 470-74 infra.

Herbert Blenner
New Member
in fond remembrance

Posts: 0

Exposing the Backyard Photos Jan 15, 2019 13:07:24 GMT -5

Post by Herbert Blenner on Jan 15, 2019 13:07:24 GMT -5

Dilemma of the Scratch Marks
by Herbert Blenner | Posted October 24, 2003

Negative scratch marks in precisely the same location on all backyard photo materials provide evidence of fakery.

Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, and Dr. Ronald Francis of the Photographic Panel exposed a roll of film in the Imperial Reflex camera and studied the camera signature. They found distinctive marks with variations of minor details. (450) Further comparison of their negatives with CE 749, the original negative of CE 133B, showed sufficient similarities of signatures to establish an important point. (448) Namely the distinctive features of the Imperial Reflex camera signature remained essentially unchanged during fifteen years.

Documenting the variations of minor details was important for an unobvious reason. A camera being a machine has slight variations in its movements. So a camera never exactly reproduces its signature. Likewise the same manufacturing machine produces cameras with slightly differing signatures. Without recognition of this omnipresent variability of machines, the basis for linking photographic materials to a particular camera collapses.

Analysis of the Imperial Reflex camera and all the backyard photographic materials by another HSCA group produced conflicting results. This group exposed rolls of film in the Imperial Reflex camera and after development examined frame edge markings and scratch marks. They found unchanging camera signatures. (391)

This result is shocking because careful examination of a roll of film by Dr. Leslie Stroebel, Mr. Andrew Davidhazy, and Dr. Ronald Francis showed considerable variations of camera signatures.(450) The implications of this being those who found unchanging camera signatures were careless in each repeat of their experiment.

More troublesome and consequential problems arise from the report of this group on their scratch mark analysis of all the backyard photographic materials. They found "scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph." (394)

The examined materials contained one original negative, several prints and enlargements of varying sizes. This assortment precluded a causal examination. Differences in sizes of these materials demanded a rigorous analysis. Under these circumstances failure to notice and report minor variations of camera signatures is inexcusable.

Either this group abused language and produced a misleading report with intention to deceive or they observed irrefutable evidence of fakery. In this latter case, forgers would have used a single signature of the Imperial Reflex camera to impress upon the backyard photo negatives that were produced by precision equipment.

This technique of forgery is tedious. They require many photographic, masking, and etching steps to produce a single forged signature. These complications explain why the forgers took a shortcut and used the same forged signature for each backyard photograph.

Candid investigators could have detected this means of forgery by comparing variations of camera signatures on the backyard photo negatives with variations measured on their test negatives. They would find no evidence of this kind of forgery on backyard photo negatives whose signature variations were comparable with those of their test negatives. Only by finding significantly less or absence of signature variations on the backyard negatives could investigators conclude fakery by photographic impression of a common camera signature. Of course finding the missing negative of CE 133-A was a prerequisite for testing.

Measurement of signature variations from photographs is tedious. The negative scratch marks reside on a layer beneath a transparent protective coating. During handling this protective coating gets scratched. Separation of emulsion from negative scratch marks is one complication.

A high-powered microscope could focus upon the negative scratch marks and its short depth of focus would render emulsion marks invisible. However this technique requires precision three-axis positioning tables for both photographs.

Further the varying sizes of the backyard photos along with the dimensional instability of photographic paper (452) necessitated number crunching ability. Clearly solving these problems in 1978 required building a custom data acquisition and processing system.

Source: HSCA Photographic Panel Report
(391) In order to determine the pattern of these camera signatures the case of CE 750, Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, test photographs were made with it and then intentionally underexposed in development to show the frame edge markings better. (No special development method was necessary to bring out the camera scratch mark pattern.) (See fig. IV-26, JFK exhibit No. F-190). Each time the film was run through the camera, the camera signature created by the frame edge markings and scratch marks was found to be the same. (165)

(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis. Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints' white borders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph. (See figs. IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)

(448) When negatives that were exposed in the Oswald camera by the undersigned were compared with the negative of Oswald, similarities in the edge markings from irregularities in the film aperture and scratch patterns indicated that the negative of Oswald was exposed in the Oswald camera. In addition, variations in sharpness from the center to the edges, and pincushion distortion were similar on the original and comparison negatives.

(450) We had intended to make a quantitative comparison of the edge markings on the various photographs, as suggested by a panel member, by aligning parts of edge markings, measuring the displacement at fixed intervals and calculating the standard deviation. Careful examination of a roll of film we exposed in the Oswald camera revealed that while the distinctive marks appeared consistently on each frame of film, the straightness of the lines varied considerably-apparently due to slight buckling of the film. Instead, we made prints that compare pairs of edges on all four sides of the picture frame.

(452) There are two obvious discrepancies that we consider to be insignificant. (1) When one edge of the two images is aligned, there is a slight lack of parallelism on the other three edges. Since the two prints were made with two different enlargers, any deviation from exact parallelism of the negative and the easel on either enlarger, a not uncommon defect in enlargers, would produce this effect. (2) There is an obvious difference in the vertical to horizontal proportions of the two images. The dimensional stability of photographic paper during processing and drying is different in the direction of the paper grain as opposed to across the paper grain. The difference in proportions is consistent with expectations if the paper grain were oriented vertically on one print and horizontally on the other.

Last Edit: Jul 19, 2019 20:41:36 GMT -5 by ADMIN