-
Posts
1,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Bristow
-
-
On 2/14/2020 at 6:31 AM, John Butler said:
The center guy is reminiscent of the Oswald standing on the bridge with Marina in Minsk, IMO.
For Chris B. What's the big deal? David Josephs, Jack White, and others have pointed out these features of composite photos for years. If you agree that there is hanky-panky in one photo then I feel you have to open your eyes to the possibility there is photo editing going on in other source photos and films.
Chris says "The photo must have been a practice run because it never would have passed inspection." Here, again I have to take a different view. In my experience the general viewer will except worse than that and see it as true and reliable. Others, for various reasons, will battle to the end that the photo is real and unaltered.
Chris B. said, "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."
Composites are made with more complexity than just matching one side of a face to another. Details, such as you have cited are adjusted by adding smaller photo cutouts to take care of details that are not working. Artwork, generally using darkened areas to represent shadows can shape the contours of various features to make them seem more realistic. Brightened or lightened areas work the same way to cover up various things and make that appear more realistic. There are more techniques than just one in these photos.
That bad composite of Oswald may have been able to fool the DMV and maybe a passport application. But of course Headley composite in the backyard photos like that 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 like that or we would have busted them. I do believe there must be higher levels of technique and compositing a face 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
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
-
6 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris B,
Chris D. posted this. It is good, but IMO it doesn't tell the whole story.
I have to admit I have been mixing up different films, different camera angles, different groups of people with white hatted policemen, walls with doors, and a wall without doors.
Apparently, that is easy to do. Let's see if I can straighten this out. There are two walls with doors. These have the man on the corner with a suit and a man on the other wall corner in glasses and raincoat. One doesn't replace the other. The man in the suit stays on his corner during most of the shooting sequence. The man in glasses and raincoat leaves his corner and disappears from the scene. He may show up at one of the films ending scenes. It is hard to tell his face isn't seen, but just a raincoat.
The 3rd wall doesn't have a door. This is a wall that the man in a suit is standing near. This adds to the confusion.
The confusion arises from this group of people. They look the same as a group of people on the other wall featuring the man with glasses and raincoat.
The biggest difference in the two groups is the man with fedora standing next to glasses/raincoat man has a tie. The man with a fedora in the other group has a bow tie.
I think this straightens me out in what is going on in these films and photos. Thanks to Chris B. and Chris D.
And, there is still David Josephs mic with shadow and mic without shadow.
And, take a look at Ruby's gun and fingers. Like to get your take on that.
And, there is 9 fingered Ruby and the Gun of Doom.
9 fingers and a lot of room between the end of his trigger finger and his knuckle of the trigger finger. It looks odd. How is it in 50+ years that no one has noticed Ruby lacks a 10th finger and his enormously long trigger finger? I think Ruby maybe using an old shooting method that uses the 1st finger as a guide pointing along the barrel and the 2nd finger becomes the trigger finger. The problem with that and a man with large hands is you might shoot your finger off. The trigger finger looks much larger than the others. Even though I don't think this is happening, it is an alternative answer.
I think most people look at the media of the assassination and the assassination aftermath with uncritical judgement and accept whatever is shown. That's just like watching TV and accepting all you see.
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.
-
7 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
The events in this photo frame comparison takes place within a time period of 1 or 2 seconds, perhaps less. Can you now see what I am talking about?
Unless there is another wall somewhere out of camera range (which I doubt because that is the only corner behind the Ruby/Oswald/others) I would suggest something fishy with a large stink quotient is present.
The top two photos show this scene from different camera angles, but the time frame is different by less than a second. There is not enough time for glasses, raincoat man to jump out of camera range and the man in the suit to jump in.
If you look at the film frames showing the man in the suit he doesn't leave the corner during the entire shooting sequence and the tackling of Ruby by the detectives. Where is the raincoat/glasses man who is there at the start of the Ruby/Oswald shooting sequence. The man in a suit was standing there at the corner before the shooting sequence began.
The top, right frame has people standing along the wall. I don't see those people in the other two frames.
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.
-
5 hours ago, David Josephs said:
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. -
20 hours ago, Dan Troyer said:
To me, the shadows in the “non-mic” picture also show the flash was up in the air. Several hats are above their shadows by quite a bit.
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.
-
17 hours ago, John Butler said:
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 -
5 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
In the photo with the mic missing. Oswald has just been shot from the grimace on his face. There's not enough time for the sound man who has the boom mic to react. No one else has reacted in the photo other than facial expressions by Detective Leavelle who is at Oswalds side. I don't count the cigar smoking man. IMO, he an addition as the microphone man is abstracted. That is what it appears like to me. It doesn't appear to me to be sufficient time for anyone to move other than Leavelle who sees what is coming.
If so and true, what I can figure out is why? Why would these changes be made? It doesn't make sense.
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.
-
10 hours ago, David Josephs said:
This just BEGS me to bring up that microphone anomaly...
It has been suggested this scene needed to be replayed....
Where is the microphone and shadow which is basically horizontally the same height as the top of the door behind everyone on that same wall???
These images are taken at virtually the same time....And there is the one and only jutting out column of bricks... the mic should be right there above the man with the mic and the man in the black hat at the wall...
Anyone 'splain that?
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.
-
6 hours ago, John Butler said:
I do believe David has shown this photo has been altered. Now the question is why? I don’t have a clue. What could be there that requires this effort?
Missing mic and guy.
I mentioned the cigar smoking guy’s extra sized arm and Chris Barstow explained that was due to shadow. But, a shadow on what? No one else has a shadow cast or cast on them. The guy behind cigar smoking guy is to far away for that to appear real. Shouldn’t Ruby’s shadow cover Oswald?
David said these images were taken at virtually the same time. That time is about a second or less. Did microphone guy have time to react and jump completely out of the scene?
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.
-
14 hours ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
Could be. Could be someone else. I thought I would hear something about camera angles.
Will Fritz looks scared witless. He doesn't want to see what he set up. He's made sure there is some distance between him and what's happening.
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.
-
1 hour ago, John Butler said:
Chris,
The top arrow refers to the black or shadowed square at the end of the cigar. The left arrow refers to some kind of square or nearly square object on his hand. There is some kind of design on the square.
The right arrow refers to a polygonal, transparent area beginning at the end of the wrist. Those don't appear to be shadows.
Chris here's another to fog the brain cells of a normal person.
This is strange. Where is the guy in the tan raincoat (possibly with a microphone) in the left hand photo. Ruby takes maybe two steps and the microphone guy disappears. In the right hand photo you can possibly see the hands of the cigar smoking man. In the left hand photo is that one amazing big arm for the cigar smoking man? That arm's almost as big as Oswald's torso.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, John Butler said:
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. -
On 2/9/2020 at 12:25 PM, Chris Davidson said:
Smoking a cigarette?
Looks like a cigar. Looks like he is about to take it out of his mouth when he stops and reaches out to Oswald
-
11 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
After watching the video Chris D. provided over and over and over again one of the questions I kept pondering was the same one T.Adams asks.
You can see Oswald is looking right at Ruby while Ruby is coming out of the press line and advancing toward him.
Ruby's distance out of the line and into the already quite small space between Oswald and the press line is significantly noticeable in the video.
After Oswald looks straight at Ruby while Ruby is already advancing beyond all other persons in the crowd, he then looks away and forward again without the slightest look of concern. Ruby shoots Oswald while Oswald is still looking ahead.
All this in what ... a two second time frame?
One does see some flashbulb flashes happening throughout the brief time Oswald and his two escorts are walking to and arriving at the shooting spot.
One of these occurs a split second before Ruby jumps out. I would imagine these flashes are very bright. Could it be that Oswald might have missed seeing Ruby first jumping towards him due to some very brief flashbulb blindness?
So many other questions regards all the video of the Oswald basement entry/murder scene sequence.
Captain Fritz's movements, actions and facial expressions right up to, during and right after Ruby's loud shot into Oswald's gut seem curiously odd in an illogically detached way.
To the point of seeming bizarre if not suspicious.
Fritz separates himself seconds before the shot and meanders several feet away into a security meaningless area and starts old man slowly and weakly waving his arms at no one close by?
Except perhaps he was somehow directing the police car inching down to ramp to pick up Oswald? As if the person driving can even see him on the opposite far side of the car?
Fritz's physical reaction response to the booming blast of Ruby's 38 is so delayed, it seemed indicative of advanced dementia. As well as his confused out-of-it facial expressions.
For a guy who was ready to punch it out with a recalcitrant young punk Buell Wesley Frazier refusing to follow his confession signing orders just two days earlier, Fritz sure got much more old man addled quick.
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.
-
On 9/19/2019 at 3:51 PM, David Josephs said:
It's copy pasted from 133-C so Ozzie fits into the ghost.... Here's the rotation I was talking about
Given this, the ghost background is from a different time (no leaves on the trees) so the cutout/ghost could have been from 133-C (even though they were not supposed to know about 133-C for many years) and just placed over the blank background photo... but then when we put him back, it's all skewed....
Doesn't that conclusively prove that at least 133-C was created?
If that doesn't prove it... this does... no?
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. -
On 11/5/2019 at 12:20 AM, Chuck Robbins said:
I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but, I have a capture from a film which has someone standing in the same unusual style.
The funny thing is that the person is one of the people who had been arrested that first day in Dallas before being released later with no charges against him.
Guess who this is.
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?
-
2 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:
John,
Take a look at David Josephs' post on the first page. That pretty much sums it the point I was trying to make.
This is a part of the Zapruder film that I feel has been largely overlooked by most researchers. There is movement in these frames at the location I enlarged.
We cannot ignore the fact that witnesses reported seeing a puff of smoke in this area. Nor can we ignore the fact that police officers directed to this location found evidence that someone had in fact been pacing, smoking cigarettes, and at some point had used the bumper of a vehicle and a horizontal fence post to boost themselves up above the top of the fence.
David also references and syncs the Bell film that included frames of the same location along the fence line which appears to show momentary movement just above the top of the fence, (as one would expect when filming from the north side of Elm St.).
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.
1959 Newspaper Photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald"
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.