Pictured above are the two backyard photos. Look at the angle Oswald is standing at.

Incredable as it may seem, the above photo was discovered in
Dallas Police files over twenty years after the fact.
Is This evidence of fakery?
Click Here For Larger Photo


This article is a working example of what can be done with digital photo evidence. I'm using the famous Backyard Photos of Lee Oswand from the Kennedy association to make the point. All that is needed to conduct this sort of thing is Photoshop and a scanner or digital camera.

The day after the assassination, the Dallas police released photographs of Lee Oswald holding the murder weapon in one hand and a copy of a communist paper in the other hand. These photographs, according to Dallas police, were taken in his backyard. One of the photographs appeared on the cover of Life Magazine in February of 1964.

Captain Fritz had shown Oswald this photograph during interrogation and Oswald said that he knew something about photography and although the photograph was his face, it had been pasted on the body and he had never seen the photographs before.

The photographs were found at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, the home of the Paines. On two searches on the day of the assassination of this address, the Dallas police did not locate the photographs. However, another search was made the following day and it was this third search in which the Dallas police say they found the photos. But the two photos were never listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions. Neither was the black shirt and the black pants that Oswald had on in the photographs ever located. Officially, two photographs but only one negative were found. Yet, Dallas police Gus Rose says that there were also two negatives. Until 1967, these photos were the only ones known to be of the backyard pose.

When you attempt to lean at the angle above, you fall over.

Closeups Of The Two Faces

For many years researchers have said these faces were faked.
A fine line runs through the chin. The shadows appear to be the same under the nose.
The second head has merely been tilted to fit into the rest of the photo.

Although taken just seconds or minutes apart, the tilt of the head on the second photo
also tilts the nose shadow.


Overlay Of The Two Faces

The second face is turned into a transparancy and titled to the same angle of
the first one. When the photos are overlayed on top of each other,
they match up perfectly as shown in the third photo about.



The shadows are very stange. Look at the shadows cast by the body. If they were only taken a few
sceonds or even minutes apart, why has the sun moved so much.


The above photos where taken of Oswald while he was in police custody.
Note the clift chin.


Notice the apparant white line that runs through the chin in the blow-ups.
Also notice the arrest photo. Oswald has a clift chin that is not flat on the bottom.


Stubby Fingers In The Backyard Photo


The actual camera the alleged photographs were taken with was not found for several weeks but finally turned over by Robert Oswald, Oswald's brother. Oswald's brother said that he found the camera at the Paine home even though the Dallas police had searched the home several times for the camera. Robert said that the camera belonged to his brother Lee Oswald. This reflex camera was a very poor quality camera and Oswald was highly interested in photography. He owned several very expensive cameras and no one ever explained why he would use such a cheap camera for these photographs.

The Warren Commission said that the photos were taken by Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, on March 31st, 1963 at the 214 W Neely address. The photos show a bright sunny day. But, a check on weather reports in the area that day reveal that it was cloudy and rainy all day.

The Warren Commission determined that the photos where real and had FBI agent Lindal Shangfield testify before it. The agent brought with him a photograph that had duplicated lighting taken with the reflex camera that might have determined the problems of the shadows on the face. However, this photograph was a photograph of an FBI man with his head cut off. The FBI did state that the actual photographs were compared to the simulated photograph to determine if they came from the same reflex camera which they stated that they did. However, Jack White pointed out that this could have easily have been done by taking composite photographs of the scene using the reflex camera.

In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee located a third photograph of Oswald with the backyard pose that was slightly different. The photo was found among the belongings of the widow of Dallas police officer Roscoe White. In the early 1990's Rosco White's son claimed that Rosco White was one of three gunmen that fired at the President which I will go into in another section.

In 1967 after he returned from Haiti, George DeMorenschild found a fourth photo of the backyard photograph that was still a slightly different pose among his personal belongings that he had in storage. On the back of this photograph is written:


The inscription was first written in pencil and then gone over in ink. Handwriting experts have revealed that the writing was not the handwriting of Oswald, his wife, DeMorenschild or his wife.

In 1970, Dallas news reporter Jim Marrs was looking into the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester. The Hesters worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Not only is this highly suspicious, this was the night before the photographs where supposed to have been found in the first place.

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.


During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.