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)

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m pleased to announce that forum member John Butler’s visual comparison of several versions of the BYP rifle(s) has been published on HarveyandLee.net.  There’s a link to John’s study near the end of the Back Yard Photo Rifle page, and his article itself appears HERE.

Thanks, John!

[John Butler]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:23 PM, Chris Bristow said:

Seeing some of these other versions of 133a that are altered draws attention to a big question for me. How do we know that the photo was not altered by a news service of magazine? If it was altered by a media outlet then issues I have raised about exposure not being able to hide a dark scope over a lighter background without washing out everything lighter, is moot. If they go beyond just adjusting exposure they can manufacture what we see in the photo.
The Life photo makes for a stronger case because the tiny 'nub' that is the rear of the scope cannot be said to be an alteration that was added to correct the rear of the scope. That 'nub' is too short to be a correction. That rules out alteration to correct the image and leaves no other explanation for a scope that is way to short.
 The only argument left to dispute the Life Mag image is to say a lack of exposure caused the scope to disappear. But if that is the case and the image was not altered then the lack of exposure issue is back on the table. That is that you can't make a dark image disappear before the lighter images behind it are washed out. You can't make the back of the scope disappear into the shirt and still have the middle and front stand out against the same shirt with the same light levels coming off of it.
 The Life "nub' image makes a much stronger case for fakery, imo.
 
 

 

Jim,

Chris Barstow makes other good points here.  The "nub" is probably the reason the Life BYP scope is shorter and is perhaps the reason rather than an alteration.  That leaves the size on the scope in the LIfe BYP something the author of the image did rather than Life or other magazine editors.   

And, he also makes this point about the alterations not being particularly logical . 

"The Life photo makes for a stronger case because the tiny 'nub' that is the rear of the scope cannot be said to be an alteration that was added to correct the rear of the scope. That 'nub' is too short to be a correction. That rules out alteration to correct the image and leaves no other explanation for a scope that is way to short.
 The only argument left to dispute the Life Mag image is to say a lack of exposure caused the scope to disappear. But if that is the case and the image was not altered then the lack of exposure issue is back on the table. That is that you can't make a dark image disappear before the lighter images behind it are washed out. You can't make the back of the scope disappear into the shirt and still have the middle and front stand out against the same shirt with the same light levels coming off of it."

It appears to be the nub of the matter.

[Jim Hargrove]

The one thing all the conflicting images of the BYP rifle/scope have in common is that NONE OF THEM MATCH THE RIFLE IN EVIDENCE!  Last Monday I posted that S.F. Chronicle article with a photo showing “Oswald” holding the rifle without a scope.  Note that it was listed as an “A.P. Wirephoto.”  Many, probably most, American daily newspapers subscribed to the Associated Press wire service.  

Here’s the same story, edited slightly differently, as it appeared in the Newark Star-Ledger.

The story in both papers says the photo came from Newsweek magazine, which obtained it from the Dallas Police.  What a farce!

And so we have a picture (pictures) of the alleged assassin, in comic book fashion, holding the rifle that allegedly killed JFK, the pistol that allegedly killed Tippit, and the newspaper proving he’s a commie.  It was designed clearly to tell America and the world that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was guilty.  And it is complete crapola, just like all the other so-called evidence against “Oswald.”   
 

[David Josephs]

[Chris Bristow]

The image of 133a from the newspaper looked extra weird because the width was shrunk by roughly 25%. I corrected the width and now the head does not look so strange.
  Some objects will change size significantly as exposure increases. Light objects get bigger and dark ones smaller. So not everything in the 2 photos will match perfectly.
They also lost some things due to the contrast, exposure  or the low resolution. Much of the subtle shades were lost. They added some things like his ears that must have been lost in the over exposed area around his head..
 Because the shirt has no detail I don't think we would be able to see the scope whether it is there or not. 
 The arrow points to the brightest part of the scope on the left image and the same reflection may be visible in the newspaper photo.
I think it is likely that the scope is there but not visible against the blackness of the shirt.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

Chris,

I'm not saying you are right, but you maybe right.  It is hard to tell.  I too, noticed what you are talking about, but didn't have the nerve or confidence to say anything about it.  Those spots may very well be camera or film objects.  You see the same kind of markings all over the photo.   However, in the Detroit Free Press photo which is essentially the same photo allegedly from the same source you have this:

There is something non-shirt on top of the rifle and I hesitate to say an invisible or barely visible (might be imagination)  scope like object there.  Changing the contrast and lightening the image doesn't do much for the idea that a scope is there, but there is a lighter colored object there that might be the scope mount, or simply due to printing, editing, or camera, or film defects.  I'll be interested in hearing your take on this. 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Here is a photo of Marina Oswald, "the KGB Princess as someone called her", that is not seen that often and is from Oswald's 201 file:

At that time she was a nice looking young lady.  IMO, well able to do her assigned tasks.  But, at first glance at the left hand photo suggests photo altering.  But, why would someone do that?  None of her features seem to match in an even or exact manner.  On a closer look her features such as eyes, ears, and nostrils are not exactly the same, but that could be due to just facial asymmetries. 

The right hand photo points out that these differences in Marina's features are most likely due to facial asymmetries, or a slight tilt of her head, and nothing else. 

As far as being "the KGB Princess", I think others have made a good case for that including I believe the FBI (but, who trusts them).

[David Josephs]

FWIW

As Day walks from the TSBD with a rifle we get a decent photo albeit the rifle is slightly turned compared to the CE139 image

Everything else seems to fit... including the scope... yet any off axis turn would cause the comparison to only be guesswork...

This is the back of the scope on the opposite side of the bolt...  notice the notch in the rifle hand-rest indent is exactly the same....  the fixed front sight is in the same place

In the B&W image the rifle is rotated as a whole about 10 degrees AWAY from the viewer... yet taking a cylinder and rotating it does nothing to change it's width.
While the images Mr. Butler offers look convincing... taking an image of the same subject with different focal lengths from different cameras and different angles makes a true comparison inexact....  until the scopes are measured using photogrammetry (which I cannot do) we are guessing...

The two images that I even use are not identical... yet the overlay of key landmarks which works in the comparison leads me to believe the comparison is sound.

 

Do we have any idea when CE139/FBI C14 was photographed for the report?  Is it realistic to assume that when the RIFLE was at the FBI LAB brought by Vincent Drain the night of 11/22 that Frasier would remove the scope and mount to examine them?

 Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin? 
Mr. FRAZIER - It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and under that is the inscription "Made in Japan." It is a very inexpensive Japanese telescopic sight.
The mount attached to it was also made in Japan. 
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you removed the mount? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I have. 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by David Josephs

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

I'm not saying you are right, but you maybe right.  It is hard to tell.  I too, noticed what you are talking about, but didn't have the nerve or confidence to say anything about it.  Those spots may very well be camera or film objects.  You see the same kind of markings all over the photo.   However, in the Detroit Free Press photo which is essentially the same photo allegedly from the same source you have this:

There is something non-shirt on top of the rifle and I hesitate to say an invisible or barely visible (might be imagination)  scope like object there.  Changing the contrast and lightening the image doesn't do much for the idea that a scope is there, but there is a lighter colored object there that might be the scope mount, or simply due to printing, editing, or camera, or film defects.  I'll be interested in hearing your take on this. 

 

I don't know what that light area is other than it being an artifact of the alteration they made to the stock. Once we find alterations like the Butt end of the stock the rest of the photo can't be trusted enough to evaluate what we see.
 That little 'reflection' I pointed to in my last post is not proof of anything either.The only conclusion I think I can make on it is the shirt is too dark to allow the dark scope to be visible.
Marinas photos look correct to me. The left image of her is a tiny bit smaller than the other one and they are not aligned vertically.

[John Butler]

 

Deleted.

Edited July 20, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Chris said,

"I don't know what that light area is other than it being an artifact of the alteration they made to the stock. Once we find alterations like the Butt end of the stock the rest of the photo can't be trusted enough to evaluate what we see.
 That little 'reflection' I pointed to in my last post is not proof of anything either.The only conclusion I think I can make on it is the shirt is too dark to allow the dark scope to be visible.
Marinas photos look correct to me. The left image of her is a tiny bit smaller than the other one and they are not aligned vertically."

I agree one photo is a tad smaller than the other.  But, that wasn't that important to me.  It seemed there was something wrong with the left hand photo of Marina.  I was trying to figure out if there were alterations.  It appears there were none.  Marina in the left hand photos has facial asymmetries as all people do.  Maybe hers is a bit more noticeable than most.  That's what I was trying to compare in the right hand photo.

I agree.  If a photo is altered it is not of any use in comparing to other photos.   

• Quote

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/18/2019 at 8:38 PM, Chris Bristow said:

The image of 133a from the newspaper looked extra weird because the width was shrunk by roughly 25%. I corrected the width and now the head does not look so strange.
  Some objects will change size significantly as exposure increases. Light objects get bigger and dark ones smaller. So not everything in the 2 photos will match perfectly.
They also lost some things due to the contrast, exposure  or the low resolution. Much of the subtle shades were lost. They added some things like his ears that must have been lost in the over exposed area around his head..
 Because the shirt has no detail I don't think we would be able to see the scope whether it is there or not. 
 The arrow points to the brightest part of the scope on the left image and the same reflection may be visible in the newspaper photo.
I think it is likely that the scope is there but not visible against the blackness of the shirt.

Chris,

Just doing a rough measurement on my monitor, this doesn't appear particularly close to the "8-head count" technique some artists use to measure the size of the head to the entire head to toe body length.



I'd certainly agree that the quality of the reproduction in these newspaper archives could well obscure a scope against the dark background, although the "highlights" your arrows point to exist in abundance all over the rightmost photo.  John A. and I have both been trying to locate a copy of the original Newsweek to see if the reproduction is any clearer.

Bear in mind, though, that these reports are from the mainstream U.S. press, hardly a hotbed of conspiracy theories.  My bet is that more than one person saw enough detail in a version of this photo to conclude the scope was absent, but I'd sure like to get a copy of that Newsweek. From memory, John A thinks that it may be the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek.  I've been unable to find it or even confirm there was an issue on that exact date. 

Can anyone provide ANY copy of a Back Yard Photo rifle and scope that matches the actual rifle/scope at the National Archives? 

 

[Chris Bristow]

On 7/20/2019 at 6:32 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

Just doing a rough measurement on my monitor, this doesn't appear particularly close to the "8-head count" technique some artists use to measure the size of the head to the entire head to toe body length.



I'd certainly agree that the quality of the reproduction in these newspaper archives could well obscure a scope against the dark background, although the "highlights" your arrows point to exist in abundance all over the rightmost photo.  John A. and I have both been trying to locate a copy of the original Newsweek to see if the reproduction is any clearer.

Bear in mind, though, that these reports are from the mainstream U.S. press, hardly a hotbed of conspiracy theories.  My bet is that more than one person saw enough detail in a version of this photo to conclude the scope was absent, but I'd sure like to get a copy of that Newsweek. From memory, John A thinks that it may be the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek.  I've been unable to find it or even confirm there was an issue on that exact date. 

Can anyone provide ANY copy of a Back Yard Photo rifle and scope that matches the actual rifle/scope at the National Archives? 

 

You are right. His whole body length is about 6.5 times his head.  Reducing the head size by about 9% makes it proportional. I measured a couple of other photos and he was consistently 7.5. That quite a bit bigger. I could not read your chart well but it looks like 8.0 is "Idealistic" and normal is 7.5.
 The HSCA offered up the fact that objects at the top of the frame are somewhat magnified. Tilting the camera down to move the head up in the frame does magnify the head but the amount of tilt is greater in the HSCA comparison.
 If you can find a copy of 133a that clearly shows no scope it would be a smoking gun. If that existed I would bet great efforts were made by the CIA to retrieve and destroy that evidence.

[Jim Hargrove]

Chris,

I'm not having much luck locating (or confirming the existence of) the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek.  If anyone who happens to read this knows how to obtain a copy, I'd love to hear from you.

[John Kozlowski]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

I'm not having much luck locating (or confirming the existence of) the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek.  If anyone who happens to read this knows how to obtain a copy, I'd love to hear from you.

From a quick search it looks like there are issues from the 6th, 13th , 20th and 27th on eBay. Was there a special midweek edition?  Nothing comes up on google from April 22