Chris Bristow

So 32, 33, 34, and 35 are all the same photograph with different contrast and possibly a different register like Joseph did with the photo from the newspaper? That's semicircular bright area over Oswald left shoulder is identical in all four.

John, I am definitely open to fakery in any image I look at, basically because I'm pretty convinced that the Stemmons pincushion issue put forth by Dr Costella demonstrates an actual case of fakery. I also posted a thread about a year ago about Oswald's lean in 133 a and I'm almost completely convinced that it represents a cut and paste. At the same time I can probably name about 30 claims of photographic fakery that can be debunked. I just took a look at Jack White's claim that he proved Mary Mormons position as shown in the Zapruder film does not match the line of sight in her photo. What I found was he based it on the position of a limo he placed on Elm Street at frame 313. He then overlaid Zapruder frame 312 to match the position of the limo. But I can now prove he had placed the limo in the wrong position. At least four feet farther east than it should have been. I have found most all of Jack White's claims we're not valid. And to go all conspiracy here I suspect his partner Gary Mack was actually there to screw up his investigations. That bad composite of Oswald may have been able to fool the DMV and maybe a passport application. But of course any composite in the backyard photos like that and we would have solid proof today that those photos are fake. Things in the backyard photos are debatable but no scientifically testable positive proof. I think they would have had to do a much better job on evidence or we would have busted them. I do believe there must be higher levels of technique and compositing of faces but I bet there's some severe limitations to it. That's a guess because we don't know what the CIA could do then or now

I don't see anything really weird about Ruby's hand or gun but shooting with the middle finger and pointing with the index finger an interesting technique. It looks like that is what he is doing from the length of his trigger finger and the knuckle of his index finger seems higher than the trigger. And he only shows two fingers on the grip. The lack of mic shadow makes sense since there is no mic there in the second photo. But since the shadow was caused by a flash it would not be present after the flash anyway. I think the mic could be retracted in less than a second especially since it may have been a fear reaction from being a few feet from the round going off. Ruby shuffled forward a foot or two in that time frame so I think there was easily enough time to pull up on the mic.

John, raincoat guy and the other guy are on opposite walls. Raincoat guy is on the wall to the right and the other guy is on the wall on the left. Notice their positions relative to Ruby. Raincoat guy is on Ruby's right while the other guy is on Ruby's left.

Wow that is interesting. It says Marguerite's files, did they mean Marina's files? Were these files brought from Russia? I would love to know the story on that. The photo must have been a practice run because it never would have passed inspection. The pupillary distance is way off, one ear is way lower than the other, the mouth is longer on one side, his left eye is lower than his right and his eyes line up with the ears differently on each side. I used to assume that if there were two Oswald's those two photos are of the same Oswald. But that wouldn't make sense if they would be placing two of them together. I can't see any reason to splice two photos of the same person together. That is very interesting indeed. For anyone looking closely at the photo I made you can ignore the lips. Rather than rotate both faces to vertical I got lazy and left them tilted. But the crop line down the middle of the face is a vertical line so it shows some errors by the time you get down to the lips.

I tried to composite the two photos just as an experiment and had some difficulties. The eyes are positioned correctly relative to each other but nothing else lines up. In the image below the ears won't line up because the Oswald on the right is tilting his head down ever so slightly. that slight tilt makes Oswald's eye line up below the top of the ear while in the left image his eye is above his ear. In the right image Oswald was looking about one degree to his right. That means in the original image the right side is about 10%+ larger then the left side in the horizontal while the vertical does not change. When you try and put the two together they are not a perfect match. You would also need the same lighting to composite two separate photos. Not saying it can't be done but you would need two photos were the head tilt and lighting match very closely. When you make a composite of two left or two right sides like David did above the head tilt does not matter but if the face is looking even one degree to the side it distorts it. If the face is looking to the right then the composite using the right side will have a wider face than the composite of the left side and pupillary distance will change. It is interesting that once you make a composite like that you create a face that has perfect symmetry and loose much of the personality.

I was comparing the Shadows of people up against the wall in both pictures and in both the shadow seems to fall about 3 to 4 in lower than their hats. I think that's due to the flash attachment being above the camera by a few inches. Oswald shadow is much lower since he is farther from the wall. The difference between the shadow height and the height of what is casting it is not so much a measure of How High the light in the room is. It is a measure of how much higher the light is than the camera.

John, I am not yet convinced that those are actually microphone Shadows. They seem to be a different shape. My initial thought was that it is a shadow of a light hanging from the ceiling. The only ceiling light we can see is a little different but it is possible the lights beyond the hallway don't have a cover. The double shadow would be caused by two more of those lights casting a shadow of that third light. The light for the video camera only cast 1 shadow. So we'd have to explain a light source that is at least as high as the video lights that has two lights shining to cast two Shadows. I understand why the original mic shadow would not be in the second picture because of the Flash. But why the mic itself is not in that photo I don't know. I thought it would be the low camera angle but it's really hard to tell how far the original microphone was from the wall. It seems unlikely to me now that the second photograph that doesn't show the microphone is due to the lower camera angle. Ruby moved forward about a foot or two from one picture to the next. The second photo was taken a few feet to the left of the first photo. So Ruby would have to have jumped forward even farther in order to cover the image of the cop on the left of Oswald. I think that would be easily enough time for the boom mic operator to jerk the microphone up and out of the frame. That would literally take about a half a second in reaction to the gunshot. That's the only answer I have as to why the mic is not in that shot. Boom mics used in a studio have a big tripod bases with wheels and long telescoping booms. Judging from some video of Oswald before they came through the door I think that the lights or the lights and the mic we're being handheld on a stick. That would allow them to move the mic even quicker. That's my theory I'm not married to it I have tracked some of the people on the wall and haven't found any problems. Do you have a specific person who appears in one frame but suspiciously disappears?

I assumed the flash that generated the mic shadow had to be from the camera that took the image but I couldn't see how the mic shadow would not be behind the mic if the camera that took the photo also created the flash. But flash attachments were mounted to the side and above the camera. I tested that and found just a few inches shifts the shadow to closely match the mic shadow in the photo. Because the camera man was up on a ladder to the height of the mic the shadow landed on the wall. A flash from the cameras at ground level would most likely create a mic shadow on the ceiling. So that mic shadow had to be created by the flash that was up high on the ladder or whatever he was on. The mic shadow would have only been there for the duration of the flash and that is why we don't see it the other photo.

Two of the 3 videos or film show the still camera flash as Ruby jumps out. But this one does not show any flash. Maybe this one is film and the shutter was closed. Does anyone know which footage was the live shot? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EExZ-u2rfdoDDtTsGtbHgAS-k9DTtlkh/view?usp=sharing

Thank you for the compliment in your other post. I just noticed the still shot with the boom mic in it was taken by a guy who was up on something like a ladder. Saw an interview with another reporter who said that guy always would try and get a up high and shoot downward. It may be the fact that he's so much higher that we see the more of the boom mic. I will look at the video again to see how much time there was for him to step back. I'm still looking for possible explanations, I'm not convinced that this has been altered.

I'm thinking that the shadow on the wall of the boom mic is being cast by The Flash of a still camera from left to right. Other than flashes the only constant light of any significance are the lights for the video cameras that were on the right of all the images and would not cast a mic shadow on that wall. So the mic Shadow had to be cast buy a flash camera and so was only visible on the wall for that moment of The Flash. The boom mic itself is hard to judge as to its location. Is it right over raincoat guys head or is it closer to the camera? That would make a difference as to why it does or doesn't appear in the other photo. Another possibility is Boom mics are made to swing left and right and up and down. It may be they were swinging the boom mic to the left as Oswald headed that way and maybe why it doesn't show up in the other picture. If we had a map of the garage area and its dimensions it would be much easier to sort this thing out. I think it's also possible that when people hear a gunshot next to them they tend to freak out for a second. One of the video camera guys starts ducking behind the car. It's possible the boom mic operator just freaked out for a second and yanked the mic up. Some people like cigar guy move towards the gun, some duck, some move away and Fritz just stands there. But he was old and focusing on the car at the moment.

I believe the shadow is falling on raincoat guy and is cast buy cigar guy's arm. The other Shadows land a little below the things that cast them which indicates the position of the light. That shadow on raincoat guy is much darker than the actual arm of cigar guy. And looking at the other Shadows I would say a shadow cast from cigar guy's arm should be where we see the dark area on raincoat guy behind him. As to Ruby Shadow covering Oswald I would say if the flash is coming from the camera and we can see both Oswald and Ruby in the frame then both should be illuminated by The Flash so no Shadow would appear. It is interesting that the camera flash totally eliminates any Shadows cast by the lights set up for the video camera The question of weather rain Coke I could come back in one second is worth checking. I find the movement takes almost a second but slightly less. Reacting to gunfire can make a person jump. A quick little jump like that really does take a second or less. It would take longer 4 cigar guy to start to move forward then for raincoat guy to push himself backward. Jumping backward takes way less time than lurching forward, but I digress with that.

That's funny cuz I seem to type the word angles more than any other word. In this case the change in angle would serve to show more of the raincoat guy so it is definitely not the answer there. That is why I thought maybe raincoat guy stepped backward as cigar guy stepped forward because the change between them is definitely significant. I haven't looked at will Fritz yet and the timing of his reaction or lack of it.

Okay on the top left Arrow the very tip of it touches the hair on the right side of the forehead I mentioned before. The lower left Arrow is still the shadow on the side of Oswald's face and some of his shoulder and collar. You can make out Oswald's face in the dark area , he is looking to the right. The arrow on the right pointing to that Square thing on the back of his hand I can't make out what it is. As far as the raincoat guy I think by the looks of cigar guys hand in relation to Ruby he has stepped way out and in front of raincoat guy. But you can see some of rain coat guy underneath the cigar guys right armpit. It may be that raincoat guy stepped back in reaction to the shot as cigar guy stepped forward. Cigar guys arm looks very thick because about the bottom third is shadow from the camera flash falling on the person in the background. You can see the demarcation from his arm to the shadow because the shadow is much darker.

Top left is the top of the guys forehead standing behind Oswald. A sliver of the forehead and his hairline, the rest blocked by Oswald. Below it is a dark shadow falling on Oswald's face. On the right is the thumb side of the cigar guys hand with a bit of the white shirt collar of the cop on Oswald's left behind it.

Looks like a cigar. Looks like he is about to take it out of his mouth when he stops and reaches out to Oswald

Joe, I think from Oswald's point of view the group of reporters may have just been dark silhouettes. The extremely bright lights used for the very old video cameras was behind and just overhead the group of reporters. Oswald looked left not directly toward but fairly close to the location of the light. Ruby wasn't directly in line with the light either but I still think may have been very hard to see. One of the video angles shows all the reporters faces were in Shadow. The still photographs don't show those Shadows because of the Flash but maybe that allowed Oswald to recognize the faces for a second.

John and Jim, yes the hand and hat is possibe. The hat is a funny shape that could be motion blur.

I wonder if that's even a face at all. Could be a case of pareidolia. Picture what looks like the nose as the thumb of the person's right hand reaching towards the camera with the thumb on top and fingers slightly curled. The light Mark just to the left would be a shirt cuff extending from the jacket. I thought I could see the outline of the person's left shoulder but it's actually being created by the chin of the guy in the foreground. If it is a person they must be in the foreground relative to the white hat cop because he is considerably taller than the white hat cop. I wonder if in the scuffle his hat came down over his forehead.

David, been trying to sort this issue out but I was never really clear on what the issue is. So I am throwing out some observations. First the two cutout images are using two of the Dallas PD backyard photos as the backgrounds. Below I posted the Dallas backyard photos 91-001/140 and 91-001/141 next to their matching cutout images. The camera position is correct in both and the shadows on the bottom of the door behind the stairs are perfect matches. I used to think the cutouts may be related to the forging of the original backyard photos. But because the background in the cutouts was taken after they found the original backyard photos, the cutouts must be an attempt to fulfill the SS request to duplicate the BYP's. This attempt must have been a half hearted endeavor, maybe a first draft, because the shadows in the backyard are nowhere near a correct match for the shadows on Oswald. Secondly Oswald in the cutout is placed several inches too low. Roscoe, I assume, lined up the roof line in the background to Oswald's head which comes close to matching 133a and 133c. But if you compare Oswald's height to the post on his right it is obvious that he was placed about 4 inches too low. The camera in the Dallas PD images is positioned very low like maybe 18 to 24 inches off the ground. That caused objects like the roof line in the background to drop when compared to objects in the foreground like the post to Oswald's right. Lowering the cutout created some big perspective problems because when lowered Oswald's feet appear lower in the image. When the feet get lowered they land on a spot of grass that is closer to the camera. Creating the effect of Oswald being closer to the camera means you would have to increase his size as you move him closer. But his head is lower in relation to the post. Moving forward would have increased his size relative to the pole. So the perspective is all messed up. Regarding Oswald's lean it seems Roscoe did a decent job on the cutout that matches 91-001/140. But in the other he tilted the cutout about 6 degrees too far. Because of the perspective problems and misaligned shadows I am inclined to think that Roscoe may have just made a sloppy mistake when he leaned the cutout 6 degrees too far left. He did much better on the other cutout and it is interesting that he cropped the feet off. Maybe he was trying to hide the perspective problem he created by placing it too low. I had considered that Roscoe may have stolen 133c before it got into evidence. But I know now that the copy found by his wife in the 70's was a first generation copy not the original. I also read that copies were made of the BYP's for some of the cops involved. Roscoe White and Stoval (maybe wrong spelling) both received copies of 133c. I can only guess that the original 133c somehow got lost in the shuffle before the rest were entered into evidence. Roscoe white had his own copy of 133c and would have been able to pose LT Brown to match 133c. And he would have used it to trace out the same pose in the cutouts. I guess if 133c was lost or misplaced before being entered into evidence Roscoe may not have known that until the BYP's were made public some time later.

I'm going to guess it's Frazier demonstrating how Oswald was carrying the curtain rods, maybe in front of 214 Neeley Street. He does have his hips shifted over his right foot but his upper body is not leaning. To me the 133 a posture is a problem but the posture in this photo looks doable.

Craig, you make several interesting points about the stance. He would have to be pretty tall. What exactly do you see in terms of a person's movement behind the fence? Are you seeing a dark outline or the light through the trees changing?

I don't know if the shooter had to boost himself up above the fence because the fence from the inside is only 4 ft 10 inches high. I think he may have had to scrunch down a bit. Because there was a breeze going on I can't really tell if leaves are moving slightly and changing the reflection coming off the leaf. That position does line up with the shooter though. 10 seconds after the headshot the shooter may have been exiting along the fence heading east which also puts him in the position in question.

Well to me it looks like light coming through the trees or reflecting off the leaves.