New Analysis of Oswald’s Backyard Photo – JFK Assassination

A one line bump and grind for Hugo. Great research! (... Isn't Internos go-to pic guy around here? Maybe he should see this too... )

if they still publish the paper they should be able to give you a good deal of info on that particular copy, i mean it has to be the most famous copy of the militant ever printed.

I believe a comment about the discrepancy of the Newspaper size was noted in one of James Fetzer's anthologies (Assassination Science or Murder in Dealey Plaza, but not in such great detail. See below.

Note also the lack of fingertips and nails in Oswald's right hand, and the odd 'split' between the upper two and lower two fingers, extending unnaturally into the back of the hand. It's as though they were pasted from two different segments.

The middle two fingers look as though they've been rather carelessly cropped off nearly straight across. (This is also noted elsewhere but figured I'd take the opportunity to use your zoomed image)



Nice job. Starred, flagged, applauded.


Update: Neither of Fetzer's books has anything about backyard photo analysis, so that's not correct. I'll keep looking because it would be nice to compare and see how much more Hugo's analysis offers here.


[edit on 11/13/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Artist as well, Oswald's shadow edges look too sharp, especially the top, the blades of grass should have broken it up or at least blurred it. It's odd but this thread makes me realize I never really studied this photo, anyone have a really high res copy of it?

Very interesting stuff.

Star and flag.




[edit on 13-11-2008 by JustAThought]

reply to post by Badge01


his index finger has a fingernail, i think, but it's quite shortened. this sometimes happens if you bite your nails a lot.

Here's a high res image. High res for this photo anyway lol.
www.oswaldsghost.com...

I'm crashing, thanks everybody for all the great comments and advice.

reply to post by pieman


You may be right. It's blurry. But the other three fingers' ends have been cropped.

Be interesting to see a negative. Not sure there is one.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Considering the time the photo would have been doctored, early 60's, this would not have been a do-it-yourself type job by someone like the Dallas police. It would have been a "perfect" work of art requiring the skills of an agency like the FBI or the CIA, in my opinion. (They couldn't know the progress of photo research ability now, 4 1/2 decades later.)

But they would have had a better sense of photo research ability now, back in 1992.
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992

The Act requires that each assassination record be publicly disclosed in full, and be available in the collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the Act (i.e., October 26, 2017), unless the President of the United States certifies that: (1) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (2) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

If I remember correctly, the assassination record was originally scheduled for release 40 years after the Warren Commission was released, so 2003. Obviously, that didn't work for their overall 'Plan'. Perhaps we advanced too quickly, technology wise, and our medicine has kept too many people alive, and our photo analysis got too good too fast.

I don't know...
DocMoreau

Edit to add, I need caffeine, so upon rereading, I am not sure what I doing with some of the grammar, but I am not sure how to say what I am trying to say otherwise. Please be kind.

[edit on 13/11/2008 by DocMoreau]

He is wearing a T-Shirt which seems to be a tight fit.... notice the big bulge on the shadow where his arm is, don't see any bulge directly on the arm next to his body!

Look closely at the hip.. exactly where the gun is, it's a perfect ">" in to his body, you can see the wooden slats behind.

I was looking at the way the newspaper is folded in the photo and noticed something peculiar. Notice how the phrase "The Militant" and "The Worker" are facing opposing directions? In other words, the top of "The Militant" faces the top of "The Worker". If you were to unfold that paper in your mind, you would see a page with words that flip over halfway down the page. Perhaps I'm missing something, but without some really interesting and creative folding, I don't know how the alignment of the text would end up like this. Can anyone offer an explanation?


Edit to fix typo.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by paradigm619]

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.

Originally posted by paradigm619
Can anyone offer an explanation?

one paper has it's name on the left top corner of the page, the other has it on the top right of the page.

reply to post by pieman


That makes sense, but in the picture, it looks like there are only two folds (folded in thirds). You'd have to really do some creative folding to make an opposing page align itself like that and still look like a newspaper folded into thirds.

Originally posted by Badge01
I believe a comment about the discrepancy of the Newspaper size was noted in one of James Fetzer's anthologies (Assassination Science or Murder in Dealey Plaza, but not in such great detail. See below.

Note also the lack of fingertips and nails in Oswald's right hand, and the odd 'split' between the upper two and lower two fingers, extending unnaturally into the back of the hand. It's as though they were pasted from two different segments.

The middle two fingers look as though they've been rather carelessly cropped off nearly straight across. (This is also noted elsewhere but figured I'd take the opportunity to use your zoomed image)



Nice job. Starred, flagged, applauded.


Update: Neither of Fetzer's books has anything about backyard photo analysis, so that's not correct. I'll keep looking because it would be nice to compare and see how much more Hugo's analysis offers here.


[edit on 11/13/2008 by Badge01]

Look at the photo of his hand thats holding the gun. No fingerprints, and it looks strange....really strange!


Hugo, good find, man. I've never been into the JFK stuff, but this has caught my attention.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by TravisT]

the top of the militant should be parallel to the bottom but they're off by about 15*, i wonder why.

I always had a fasination about the Oswald-Kennedy shooting. Those pictures and the measurments you describe are interesting. So I thought I would try to superimpose a photo of me and my AR-15 into that scene. After an hour of Photoshop, this is what I came up with.



Imagine what a government can do, even back then?

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

I hate to be captain obvious, but the shadow of the gun butt on the ground should be triangle shaped not stick shaped. Also you can clearly see the photo cuts around the end of the barrel. enjoy.