NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos” (CE-133-A, B, C) is different from “Oswald’s” so-called rifle and scope (CE 139)

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

Do you have the source image from which the bottom photo (of the two above) was taken? I know you didn't take that from your Life magazine cover because that one doesn't show a curved rifle butt, and the back end of the scope cannot be made out in it.

I searched and searched online for a backyard photo showing those things and other details as seen in your photo and could find none. I'm left wondering if you are the victim of someone else's touching up.

 

Sandy,

I did a Google image search for the backyard photo with the clearest view of the dark rifle and scope against the dark clothing worn by who we think was Roscoe White. According to Google, the one I selected was from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA and seemed to have the the most complete grey scale and thus the most observable detail. 

 

Jim,

I found the Encyclopedia Britannica image you mentioned. Here it is:

 

 

 

While the gray scale is excellent, allowing us to make out the scope, the scan resolution is of lower quality than the image you posted.

Nevertheless it does allow us to confirm that the rear end of the scope is shorter than the scope as seen in the DPD photos.

However, when I look at the butt plate in the Encyclopedia Britannica photo, I'm left with the impression that it isn't very curved, but looks curved because of a shadow the butt casts on Oswald's trousers. Your photo is more clear and so I want to conclude that it indeed shows a curved butt plate. But the Encyclopedia Britannica image makes me hesitate in accepting that as fact.

Still, I think there is no question that the rear of the scope is too short. I'm not convinced that the Encyclopedia Britannica image is the source for yours, and so I believe it corroborates yours.

 

 

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

On 6/29/2019 at 7:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

 

 

 

[Michael Clark]

To be sure, all scopes I have used slide forward and back in the mounting rings. If you had to remove a scope for transport or storage, or to use a scope on several guns, you would remove the scope from the mount, not the mount from the gun. While MC might be different in ease of mount removal, the scope would still, probably, slide within the mount.

[Chris Bristow]

On 6/29/2019 at 6:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.

If there were other copies of this floating around I would feel more confident about it's validity. We know life Magazine did a photoshop on one version of 133a  to bring out the scope. I believe they admitted that after differences were noticed in their version. It was common to improve photos like that in those days so it was not necessarily a cover up. But it makes me wonder if Encyclopedia Britannica didn't work on the image themselves.
There is one thing bugging me. The notch in the top of the stock behind and above the trigger is deeper than any other photo I can find. In other photos the stock has a very gradual downward angle and the deepest part of the notch is also much farther back on the FBI photo.  Even the Dallas PD photo which has a distorted shortened butt does not have that notch so deep and so far back.
 

[Chris Bristow]

On 6/29/2019 at 6:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.

 

I wish I could be more confident about the source of that photo. We know Life Magazine altered their copy of 133a to bring out the scope. common practice in those days and so I have to wonder if Encyclopedia B. or some other source didn't shop it too.
 There is one thing about it that bothers me. The notch above and behind the trigger is a much different shape than any other  photo I have seen. It does not have the shallow gradual angle others images show and the deep part is much farther back on all other photos, like the FBI photo above.

[David Josephs]

On 6/29/2019 at 9:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.

At John A’s suggestion, I created the graphic above by rotating a “backyard photo,” cropping out just the rifle, and positioning it directly below the WC image of CE 139. The differences, including the scope’s relation of the rifle, seem quite obvious. Note also the color of the sling and the curvature of the end of the rifle butt.  John added the the pointers below to show the differences in the scope.

Below is a link to John’s soon to be released article on my website discussing this new development.  In short, the piece explains that the so called “Backyard photos” were being processed by Robert and Patricia Hester at the National Photography Laboratory in Oak Cliff long before they were officially “discovered,” and that the composite picture in the photo(s) is most likely Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald’s head placed on Roscoe White’s body, and that the whole Dial Ryder story was invented because initial prints of the backyard photos did not appear to show a scope mounted on the rifle.

This piece may not be in its final form yet.  I just finished uploading it to the server an hour or two ago, but it is already a kick-ass read!

https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html

I truly hate raining on the parade.... as I agree on the discrepancies... but the bolt is open and moved closer to the rear of the rifle in the top image, whereas the bottom, look where the bolt is in relation to the scope.  Also slightly different angles.

 

FWIW...   seemed to me the bolts were in diff positions... I was wrong.

other than different rifles, only the angles of the images could be causing the diff.

and I agree that ce139 was not the TSBD rifle....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

DupCup

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by David Josephs

[Joe Bauer]

Are you saying that the scope can be moved backward and forward and then locked in at different horizontal positions along the barrel below it?

That the scope in the above photo seems longer in it's farther back position relative to the bolt handle than the lower photo simply because someone adjusted it to a different front to back barrel position?

And the notch does seem different in depth.  Is that due to a different angle or distance of the photo?

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

To be sure, all scopes I have used slide forward and back in the mounting rings. If you had to remove a scope for transport or storage, or to use a scope on several guns, you would remove the scope from the mount, not the mount from the gun. While MC might be different in ease of mount removal, the scope would still, probably, slide within the mount.

Michael,

I’m pretty certain John told me that the scope on the Mannlicher Carcano he owns does not slide back and forth in the mount, but I’ll try to remember to confirm that with him, at least for his scope.  But it strikes me as ultimately irrelevant in this case whether the scope slides in the mount or not.

Take another look at the comparison image above.  Note how closely the ends (away from the shooter’s eye) of both scopes align, while the fronts (toward the eye) clearly do not align.  The backyard photo scope is simply shorter than the scope of the rifle in evidence.  Just measure them on your monitor. It shouldn’t matter whether it was mounted differently or not.

And I don’t see how this could be explained by camera angles.  If the images of the rifles are reproduced at the same length, then the attached scopes should also be the same length, regardless of how perpendicularly the subjects are aligned to the camera’s view, no?

[Michael Clark]

36 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Are you saying that the scope can be moved backward and forward and then locked in at different horizontal positions along the barrel below it?

That the scope in the above photo seems longer in it's farther back position relative to the bolt handle than the lower photo simply because someone adjusted it to a different front to back barrel position?

And the notch does seem different in depth.  Is that due to a different angle or distance of the photo?

Hi Joe, yes, that is what I am saying. To be sure, in relation to the gun, I would refer to the scope adjustment we are talking about as longitudinal adjustment. I would be surprised if, as Jim suggests above, John says that this scope does not adjust in such a fashion. Scopes adjust in this manner to accommodate arm lengths and preferences of the shooter. It is fairly common for a new shooter to get his or her eye too close to the scope and end up with a black or bloody eye from the recoil punching the scope into the shooters face. (I warned my brother, honest!). 

[Karl Kinaski]

There is another good point in regard to this topic made by John  Armstrong( I admit he digged out a lot of valuable details, although I don't buy his HARVEY and LEE theorie), that is: The Money order from Oswald to Kleins to purchase the Carcano (or one of the three 🙂 shown in this thread), was never cashed. Armstrongs conclusion, quote: "The easiest way to show ()that the rifle was never ordered or purchased by LHO is simply to look into the Warren Volumes at that money order. Once you see that it has never been cashed  at a bank ( thee money order had some stamps missing)(...)  you don't have a cashed money order you don't have a purchase." 

We have three different rifles never purchased by Oswald, at last not by the money order shown in the Warren Volumes. 

Source Len Osanics "50 Reasons for fifty years, ep. 39 ...  

Edited July 1, 2019 by Karl Kinaski

[John Butler]

 

The WC scope appears to be significantly larger than a difference produced by camera angles or distance of the rifle photographed.  The WC scope protrudes beyond the bolt assembly by a greater distance than the BYP scope.  Both scopes protrude beyond the scope mount at about the same distance to the front.

The WC scope is tilted downward at a greater degree than the BYP scope which is tilted upwards.  This may well indicate that the two scope mounts are different. 

The rifle stocks appear to be different due to the sculpting of the stock of the BYP rifle has greater curves than the WC stock.

The bolt grip or handle seems to be different in the two rifles according to the red lines drawn from the top of the butt stock to the top of the rifle's end.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

The small amount of distortion caused by angle would never account for the scope being so much longer at one end and not the other. The distortion I demonstrated with the yardsticks does increase as you move from barrel to butt, so the front half of the scope will be slightly different than the rear. But nowhere near as much as we see in the photo. I read Jim's post with a bias that made me miss the point at first.
   The distortion could play a small part in the notch issue I raised. The Dallas PD photo has the same type of distortion as 133a but a lot more of it.( The barrel is a little closer to the camera than the butt.) That would make the notch appear shorter in length and so it may appear deeper relative to it's length. Even with more distortion the Dallas PD photo shows a long gradual angle. I had measured the distance from the back of the slide mechanism to the notch at 10 mm in jim's image and 15 mm in other sized images. That is a big difference no angle can account for it. It suggests that the image might have been altered. A couple of my 133a copies are excellent and have as much detail as the Britannica image but don't show the back of the scope. I am still suspicious that this image was altered at some point by Britannica or before they got it. I am going to see if I can email Encyclopedia Britannica and ask if they know anything about the image they have.

When looking at certain things like the position of the bolt or the different gap sizes between the scope and slide we have to take into account that in some photos the rifle is slightly rotated. In 133a the top of the rifle is rotated towards the camera more than other photos.

[Jeff Carter]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

According to Google Images, the photo I captured, rotated and cropped was from Britannica.  I selected it because the image seemed clear and had extended grey tones bringing out additional details.  

To see a Google Image search based on the Britannica image, CLICK HERE.

There appear to be scores of identical images all over the world.

As I understand it, based on John A’s research, ALL the backyard photos officially entered into evidence (CE 133-A, B, and C) are so poor that a scope can’t even be seen against the dark clothing worn by who we suspect was Roscoe White with Oswald's head.  John wrote, 

Life Magazine allegedly obtained a copy of 133-A (below) from FBI agent James Martin, who was entrusted with the care and protection of Marina Oswald. This photo, however, was an enhanced version of 133-A that was found by the Dallas Police. It showed more detail and now a scope could be seen on Oswald's rifle. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY DALLAS POLICE, and the origin and source of this photo (below) remain unknown. FBI Agent Martin should have been asked who gave him this photo.

Enhanced version of 133-A. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY THE DALLAS POLICE.

On February 21, 1964 Life Magazine published a 3rd version of CE 133-A that was retouched and showed even more details of the rifle and scope.

 

The biggest problem we have, as I see it, is that it was never explained how LIFE magazine obtained such an enhanced copy of CE-133A.  In my opinion, it looks like the magazine editors had access to a negative, which was not supposed to exist.

LIFE Magazine described what was in their possession as a "copy negative".

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=475&tab=page

The Dallas Police reports from 11/23/63 described finding two negatives at Ruth Paine's (133-A & 133-B), and two negatives are listed as received at police headquarters shortly thereafter. Oswald was shown a print of 133-A later that day, presumably created from the negative. How, why, or when this negative disappeared has never been determined.

The FBI determined that all existing prints beyond those initially discovered (the "drugstore prints" of 133-A and 133-B), were created at Dallas Police HDQ, and that would include the one in possession of James Martin. The "drugstore prints" were not of inferior quality, but were quite small (3"x3").

A good research project - and perhaps some resources could be pooled to facilitate this, if it is feasible - would involve creating hi-res scans of the best versions available at National Archives. The reliance now is on copies of copies, some of which had been subject to photo enhancement by outlets such as LIFE.

[Joe Bauer]

I just did a quick length measurement of Oswald's enormous head top to bottom as seen in the Life magazine photo above.

I wanted to then use that measurement on other points and objects in the photo.

Just with the newspaper or magazine Oswald is holding the length of his head top to bottom takes up 80% of the up and down vertical length of that paper.

Hopefully others can do the same with Oswald's up and down head length measurements and compare them to other fixed objects measurements in the photo.

Perhaps the staircase steps?

Very unscientific I know...but I still feel Oswald's head is way too big for his body in that Life Magazine picture.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

LIFE Magazine described what was in their possession as a "copy negative".

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=475&tab=page

The Dallas Police reports from 11/23/63 described finding two negatives at Ruth Paine's (133-A & 133-B), and two negatives are listed as received at police headquarters shortly thereafter. Oswald was shown a print of 133-A later that day, presumably created from the negative. How, why, or when this negative disappeared has never been determined.

The FBI determined that all existing prints beyond those initially discovered (the "drugstore prints" of 133-A and 133-B), were created at Dallas Police HDQ, and that would include the one in possession of James Martin. The "drugstore prints" were not of inferior quality, but were quite small (3"x3").

A good research project - and perhaps some resources could be pooled to facilitate this, if it is feasible - would involve creating hi-res scans of the best versions available at National Archives. The reliance now is on copies of copies, some of which had been subject to photo enhancement by outlets such as LIFE.

I looked into this a bit at one point and made a few discoveries. The HSCA photo panel claimed the enlargement from 133a created on the 23rd and the multiple versions of 133c they retrieved from White, Studebaker and Stovall all came from the original negatives. This means that, in the eyes of the HSCA, the DPD had ALL THREE negatives but only turned the negative to 133b over to the Warren Commission. The location of the other two remains a mystery. 

Now, to be fair, Studebaker tried to deal with this in his HSCA testimony. He claimed the copies he handed out were made from photos, and not negatives. So...there's a divide...which made Gary Mack's mind spin when I first pointed it out. If one trusts the photo panel than one is forced to conclude the DPD stole not one but two of the three negatives they'd recovered. If one trusts the DPD, on the other hand, then the photo panel was wrong, and couldn't tell a copy of a copy from a first generation print.