Chris Bristow

Hey Joseph, maybe my eyes are failing me but in those two photos of Oswald, is his head is 12.5 inches in the Marine photo and 9 inches in the other one???

Edit: Just gave those faces another look and it is weird. I sized them to match pupillary distance and when I did the inch marks behind them no longer match. The New Orleans mug shot has to be sized way up to match the PD and the the inch marks become about 20% larger than the Marine photo. So maybe the Marine Oswald is standing farther from the inch marker like you theorized. Very strange.

On 7/30/2019 at 9:19 AM, David Josephs said:

Yeah, I'm just not done with this yet....

Inset in the following graphic ought to be enough proof to anyone that not only do photographs lie, they cannot be used to measure much of anything.

Comparing those photos would be like comparing the photos at the bottom right... EXCEPT, the distances and focal length SHOULD be almost identical...

How can the same man have a 9 and 12.5 inch head in virtually the same photo?  He can't... one or the other has been "arranged" to make a 5'11" Lee Oswald appear to only be 5'9"

 

 

I think some information can still be gleaned from distorted images. I mentioned earlier that you can measure the magnification of the barrel and minification of the butt and have a good idea of how much distortion we should see at different points along the length of the rifle. Of course all we can do is compare it with other photos that will have some level of distortion. But my point here is the level of distortion in the slide, the butt and the barrel are absolutely tiny compared to the rear portion of the scope which is over 30% larger in virtually every other photo except the cover of Life Mag. 
In the comparison below the yellow lines mark 2 points along the slide mechanism that are the same length in both photos. How is the scope, which is just above the slide, over 30% longer in the rear portion when the slide is normal?  Now looking at the red lines they show that the front and middle part of the scopes and the brackets that hold it are all the same length,  only the rear portion is over 30% longer.
 Can you think of anything that could ever cause such large and selective size distortions? Maybe printing it on defective paper could make for a 30% difference in just one small location on the print, and only along the horizontal axis. But where the distiortion merges back into the non distorted area we should see considerable bending, but there is none to see. It also  leaves an image of the shirt where the scope originally was.
The distortion is very large at 30% and limited only to the rear 1/3 of the scope with no corresponding distortion in the slide right below it. Those factors, imo, rule out the possibility of distortion as anything other than a very small contributor to the scope anomaly.

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Jim, the BYP and CE139 are the rifles in my overlay and it shows how different images of the same thing yet with a variety of details different, makes it impossible to do size comparisons on a 2d image.  That and the rifles are not even facing the camera the same way...

when someone employs Photogrammetry and does actual measurements, we’ll know...

Ive been doing image comparisons a long time now... with different focal lengths and distances, comparisons are only estimations.

Tell us it was the same camera at diff distances, or same distance diff focal length... and we can.

This is a extensive course on  Photogrammetry from Bonn University in Germany. Over 50 hours of lecture to a class. I have only got thru a few lessons and have not seen a method for calculating the angle of the Carcano yet.
The only way I can think of to determine if the rifle is leaning barrel end forward is to consider the manner in which it is distorted. A clear example of what to expect can be seen in Jack White's comp I posted on page one. The top rifle((Dallas PD) is by far the most distorted image of the Carcano. Measuring the distance between objects as you move from front to rear shows that the Dallas photo is larger than the other images at the barrel end but slowly shrinks as you move towards the butt of the rifle. At the butt end the rifle it is smaller than the other images. I believe this demonstrates that the barrel end leans toward the camera. In comparing the rifles I measure from barrel end to front sight, front sight to stock, stock to raise on top of stock. Raise to scope etc. I also photographed and tested a Mauser and verified the same measurable distortion. 
One thing that Jack Whites comp shows is that even though you can measure these differences they are much more obvious when comparing the barrel end to the butt. But even though the Dallas Police photo has a great deal of distortion front and back, the scope is not affected much at all. Those distortion can't account for the large difference that appears only in the scope. But more specifically in Jim's image it is only the last 3rd of the scope that appears too short. I can't figure how distortion, focal length or distance to camera could selectively shrink only the rear part of the scope.
  Not only does the Dallas PD image show a large amount of angular distortion, all three photos(National Archives, FBI and Dallas PD) were taken with different cameras, even with all that the scope in all three images is almost the same length. I think this is because the middle of the rifle is the closest to distortion free. Too big at the front, too small at the rear and just right in the middle.

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

I don't agree with everything you say, its simply a matter of interpretation.  But, on the whole you have done excellent work and have hit the nail on the head.

You say "In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake." 

When I drew that line I indicated in was an arbitrary line.  I wanted to show two things.  Those are the tilt of the scope and the phoniness of the bolt handle.  When you introduced the line from the end of the bolt to the beginning of the barrel I agreed that was a better way to look at it and have used that in other illustrations.  IMO, not a mistake but a difference in interpretation.  Good work on that better suggestion.

You also said "Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork."  I agree, but when I say such things I usually get beat up about it and have a tendency to shy away from that.

You said, " but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo"  

Another piece of good work is mentioning the nub of the scope in certain versions of the BYP CE 133 A. 

The two photo cropped images are from the first page and Jim Hargrove.  I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the photos.  The phoniness of the bolt handle shows that it is a LIfe BYP and is perhaps a different version of the CE 133 A photo.  I think Jim said his photo came from the Encyclopedia Britannica.   However,  the Life BYP cover I have does show the "nub" clearly.

There is a clear difference in Jim's crop and this one.  Remember, Life magazine made adjustments to the photo.  Or, this nub could be the reason that the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek decided to eliminate the scope in their version of the BYP CE 133 A.  

You said, " Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. " 

I have to disagree on this one.  IMO, the bolt handle is also artwork because the tilt of the rifle in the BYP rifle is not enough to increase the size of the bolt roughly to twice its original size as shown in the CE 139 rifle crop.  To get that bolt handle to that size one would have to twist the center of the rifle greater than the butt stock and front portion of the rifle.  It is simply to long and not of the same appearance as other bolt handles on other bolt action rifles.  The scope doesn't show that kind of tilt because it is still sitting to the left of the rifle and fairly well matches the way the scope was mounted.   

 

The way I see it the arbitrary line is not the same in both images so can't be used to compare scope to stock angles accurately. Regarding the bolt almost every photo of a Carcano I see does not have it rotated like 133a. I duplicated the bolt position with my Mauser but that is not a perfect comparison. I found one image that comes very close to the bolt in 133a, close enough that I don't think it has to be faked in 133a. In most images the first part of the bolt is pointing right at camera and you can't see any of it's length. But as soon as you rotate down it grows significantly. 

Jim, I think this issue of angles and scope size can be resolved by looking at Jack White's comparisons of the FBI, National archives, and Dallas Police photo comparison that I posted on page one. The Dallas Police photo is the most distorted. In it the butt of the rifle is much smaller than the comparison photos yet the barrel is larger, longer than the FBI and archives photos. Still the scope in the Dallas Police photo is not shrunk much at all. I think this confirms that the angles are not the cause of the shorter scope. Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork. I also think the different angles of the scope to the barrel are simply the result of that airbrushed portion of the scope being misaligned. In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake. The butt of the gun changes in size as you change the exposure level which in turn changes that line from the barrel to the butt. Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. The rotation will change the red line from the barrel to the top of the butt of the rifle. I believe the issue of the scope and Barrel angles will detract from your main issue and should be dropped. One other thing that I don't understand is that you call your comparison  the Life magazine photo, but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo.

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.

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I like the way you phrased your question Chris. I noticed DVP weighs in with one piece of physical evidence, which is good, but ultimately DVP and other LNer's shy away from questions of intent such as these. Because inevitably they are left with nothing  to say but Oswald was a "loser" failed in every aspect of his life, yet always they come back to an  intensely ambitious person, out to make a name for himself,  who ultimately when faced with the accumulated failures of his everyday life just unthinkingly struck out and pursued a self destructive course, not considering any consequences, unable to think ahead enough to manage the most elementary coverup. Would their contention be that Oswald simply "snapped". They've never been detailed or clear about that. Yet ultimately he could impart no message, because he denies his wrongdoing. I'm not sure I can think of any other such profiles that they would cite that would fit with Oswald.

He was a loser despite the fact that he had managed to accomplish more, seen more places and cultures in his short 24 years, than the great majority  of us have see have seen in our lifetime. But the more primary and one dimensional they can depict Oswald, the easier they can craft an explanation.

When you ascribe a specific motive to Oswald's Behavior the contradictions become apparent. Marina said his Russian was so good she thought he was native born. That's not a dumb guy.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - I think what you are pointing out is if you buy the WC conclusions, and their account of Oswald’s actions, you have to accept that he was an assassin who left the clues to his guilt in plain sight. I prefer to see his actions as those of an innocent man, and certainly not of an assassin. To that end it’s necessary to question the WC conclusions, their explanations for Oswald’s irrational behavior, and their timeline. Nothing is certain when comes to the weapons he supposedly purchased, and most especially to the Walker shooting. 

I do think Oswald's actions are that of an innocent man. I only posed these questions has an interesting thought experiment.

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.
 
 

 

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

I have read that Lt. Day removed the fourth or live round from the rifle.  Day was probably weapons trained in the military or at least by the Dallas Police.  That's generally what you do with a rifle or other weapon you know nothing about.  You first check to see if the weapon is loaded.  A second step generally is to remove the ammo if any and close the bolt and trigger the weapon so it will not be cocked.  That keeps accidents from happening.  Day probably forgot that last step under the stress of the moment.

As far as the photo of the CE 139 photo from Harvey and Lee the bolt does not appear to be cocked.  The distance between the cocked bolt and the rest of the weapon is greater in the Day photo than the CE 139 photo.  Which may indicate it is not cocked.  Maybe half-cocked if the rifle had that feature which I doubt.

Yes 133a and the TSB rifles are cocked and ce139 was not. You are right the standard thing to do is close the chamber (Which cocks the weapon) then dry fire it to be sure you didn't miss a round. I use an old Mauser for photographic comparisons and it has never been fired or had a round in it in over 30 years, yet I still cock and dry fire when I use it. That assures I will live to be paranoid another day.

20 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

People that advocate the lone assassin theory have to believe that Oswald wanted to get away, and that he wanted to get caught.

It also brings up the question: why take a picture with it at all? Are there any other pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle? Was this something he was in the habit of doing, getting his picture taken with his firearms? And he couldn't have destroyed them all, only his own copies, since one was apparently in the possession of George de Mohrenschildt and one in an entirely different pose in the possession of Roscoe White. But the point still stands - why would he take a picture with the guns at all if he had any intention of committing the crime and trying to get away with it?

Yes, it seems that ordering the rifle under an alias would be a conscious attempt at NOT tying himself to the rifle. And this apparently indicates premeditation. Therefore it makes no sense for him to be carrying a Hidell ID with him at the time of his arrest.

Of course, had he only walked into any gun store in Texas and paid cash for a rifle, there would have been no paper trail at all.

Both of these are good points. It's interesting that apparently there were no prints found on the rifle until after Oswald's death.

This is a point I brought up in another thread recently. I believe it's an important and telling detail. I would imagine that anyone considering this crime would likely think there was a chance that he would have to shoot his way out of the building. That Oswald didn't take a handgun with him, and had to travel all the way home to pick one up, suggests that the need for a handgun was not felt until just before he went to pick it up. I interpret this as being consistent with a person in a panic situation, trying to adjust to unexpected events. Not someone whose plan is going according to plan.

I also believe this is very telling. According the the official story, Oswald had no escape plan beyond going to the movies. This is a guy that had access to over a hundred dollars cash and had just recently traveled out of the country. Lee Harvey Oswald knew how to get to a bus station, train station, or airport. He got on and off two vehicles. He even had the opportunity to steal a police car. If it's true that he couldn't drive, then at the worst he could have carjacked someone and made them drive. But he didn't have any getaway plan at all, from what I can discern.

From what I understand, Oswald could have literally walked a few blocks to the train station from the TSBD. The fact that after being on two vehicles and walking a decent distance, the best escape he could make was to a place where people sit quietly in one spot, in the dark, for hours. This is a guy who just pulled off the crime of the century!

From what I understand, only Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle reported seeing the rifle package, but you're still right that anyone truly keeping subterfuge in mind could do a lot better than carrying it in open sight through the usual employee entrances and gathering places.

It seems most LN's try to frame this as a crime of opportunity. That lonely misfit Oswald saw his chance to make a mark upon the world and to finally "be somebody" and get his name in the history books. Only one little problem with that, is that Oswald denied the crime with every breath. How is he going to be famous for a historic act that he strenuously denied committing? LN's will often then try to say that Oswald wanted to save his opportunity to pontificate on world politics for his trial, where he would have a bigger stage. I always ask if there is a precedent for that anywhere in history? Has an assassin ever killed a world leader and denied the crime, only to later take credit for it in a public forum? I don't know, I've never heard of that happening, but I'd like to think that the idea wasn't just based solely upon conjecture.

You made some good point like why didn't he just pay cash for the Carcano?
 I just remembered Oswald Used the Carcano to try and kill General Walker in April! Then he gives a copy to De Mohrenschildt a month later. He didn't feel any need to destroy the evidence that connected him to Walkers assassination attempt from just weeks before.
March 30th he takes the BYP's. April 5th he gives De Mohrenschildt a copy of 133a. April 10th he tries to kill Walker.

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

completely agree.

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

There is controversial evidence that Oswald bought the .38 and then others claim that he didn't.  The Harvey and Lee site suggest Oswald was given the .38 with a defective firing pin by Officer Tippett.  I've always favored Officer McDonald with a throw down piece and he shot at Oswald and the gun misfired.  He reversed the story after failing and  being knocked down by Oswald who ended up with the gun.  Of course, that is just speculation with no evidence there.  Oswald is later said to have claimed the gun at his questioning with the statement something like you know how boys are.

If the gun was planted by the Dallas PD it would make sense to fix it so it would misfire and not shoot a cop.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Here is another comparison you might find interesting:

CE 139 has two round objects of indeterminate appearance.  They may be screws, bolts, or camera objects.  Whatever they maybe they are not found on the Lt. Day rifle version.

The Day rifle appears to be cocked.  That is probably so when he removed the last or 4th Carcano round from the rifle.  IMO, definitely not the same scope.

 

Who removed the last 4th round Oswald or Day? I wonder why either of them would slide the bolt forward as if to chamber another round. The 133a rifle was cocked too.
Those two reflection look like they are coming from the lower part of that x shape on the scope mount. Maybe due to the light in ce139 coming from higher than the TSB photo which appears to be illuminated by a flash on the camera. just a guess.

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Here's something for you to think about.  The Mannlicher is found at the TSBD on 22 Nov. 1963 as seen in the Lt. Day photo.  The Life Backyard Photo and the Detroit Free Press photo was I believe in the last part of February.  I don't know when WC CE 139 was taken.  Since it was taken by the FBI I would assume that was prior to February, 1964.  The photos were returned to the Dallas police by the FBI.

Let's say the Life BYP was changed because the scope did not match the photo of Lt. Day holding the TSBD rifle and scope.  Or, it could be someone had already seen the CE 139 and decided to try to match the scope there but fell short, no pun intended.

The Detroit FP version looks like a complete mess made by an amateur.  What do you think?

 

Well the Detroit photo is obviously altered by someone, maybe the Detroit Press. The TSB scope looks like the FBI scope to me, different lighting and in the TSB photo the camera is lower. Nothing stands out to me as wrong.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I just found this searching through a newspaper database.  Click on the story to enlarge it.

That is fascinating and that crazy photo is comical.

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

I own a very well-preserved copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine and I’m staring at the cover right now.  I’ve examined the rifle’s scope under bright light and with a magnifying glass and am inclined to agree with your description of it, but we need to remember that these prints are lithographic halftones (comprised of tiny dots) that may give away some details. Still, my bet is your description is correct.

On close examination, the dark shirt behind what you call the “nub” end of the scope has some texture, some slight folding, and even a feint highlight.  I can’t imagine faking all this in order to shorten the scope.  If anything (and this is a guess) it might show that the whole scope was added, in at least two different (and both incorrect) lengths.  I can’t imagine an innocent explanation.

Curiously, LIFE put the image on both the cover and on p. 80 of it’s 2/21/64 edition.  Extensive photo credits are listed on the Contents page, but nothing is listed for the cover or the BYP illustration on p. 80.  The only credit given for p. 80 is the smaller photo at the top of the page of Marina and June.  As for the provenance of the BYP, LIFE editors clearly aren’t talking.

In the p. 80 photo caption, however, the editors are happy to say that “Dallas police have confirmed that this is the rifle found in the Texas Book Depository.” Somebody didn’t look very closely... or didn’t want to. I'm very surprised that this took more than half a century to come to light.

The easiest way to do 133 would be to place a photo of White holding the rifle onto the backyard and add Oswald's head. The only scenario I can think of that accounts for the missing scope  would be White forgot to put a scope on the Carcano then added it after and  accidentally cut off the end of the scope. That would be the Life version.
 What makes no sense to me is how the end of the nub could be so distinct and show none of the scope beyond that. The rest of the scope was as dark as the rear but it is clear, it isn't in the process of disappearing. The scope is the darkest object around Oswald's hips and I would think it would be the last object to disappear when the exposure is increased. To get rid of the darkest object(If it is not to small or thin) you have to crank the exposure way up and the shirt washes out before the scope does. The clamps on the scope are well defined from the darker scope and are similar in brightness to the shirt yet both elements are well defined from each other, so how did the rear disappear into the shirt?
Another strange thing is the scopes shadow is much lighter and more subtle than the scope end but it remains  and the scope is gone.
 

If Oswald did Kill JFK he didn't care much about covering his tracks. I wonder why he didn't do the following.
1. Destroy the backyard photos.

2. Remove his A. Hidell I.D from his wallet because it tied him to the rifle.

4, Remove his fingerprints from the rifle or maybe wear thin rubber gloves if that isn't to clumsy.

5. Bring his revolver under a coat. If you think you may need it to escape, that escape starts right after you shoot. you shouldn't have to go home to get it.
6. Don't take in a movie, go back to work.

7. Don't bring the rifle with you to work the same day you plan to use it. Carrying a package that looks like a rifle into a 6 story building on the presidential parade route, a few hours before the president arrives, looks suspicious.

8. Maybe find another building to shoot from. Maybe pose as a delivery guy with a long package and invoice and smuggle the rifle into the DalTex building through the loading dock days in advance. find a place to hide it and a location to shoot from. The roof may suffice but an unused office on a low floor would make a quicker getaway. Getaway from the rear and across the street to the SBD and eat your lunch. I'm sure #8 has fatal flaws, it's all just an interesting thought experiment.

We could also assume Oswald didn't do it and speculate as to when his behavior suggested he had realized he was the patsy. Some time before he picked up his revolver I think. 
  

Jim, they say the Life version was altered to bring out the rear of the scope but in the Life image the rear of the scope is just a nub. I don't get it. Your copy of 133a and others show more scope but are still too short. That may mean Life Mag is the original  fake that shows Rosco's botched work and your version is the attempt to fix the original error.
The rear end of the Life Mag scope is fairly sharp and it just disappears leaving a shade that matches Oswald's shirt where several inches of scope should be. The stark contrast between your version and Life Mag, I think, strengthens your case. When people claim yours must be the version Life altered, you can show the Life image is even shorter than yours.
 I find it hard to believe Life tried to bring out the scope and then made it this tiny nub. Most of that nub is already visible in the bad copies of 133. It seems the Life image proves the scope end was missing and yours proves someone tried to add it back in and made it too small. The distinct end of the Life image eliminates the possibility that the difference between your scope and the Life image is just due to being processed/developed differently, imo.

If Oswald lied about Neeley St to keep the backyard photos from implicating him then he must have forgotten about their existence until minutes after the assassination. He forgot about them even though he would have known in advance that he would leave the rifle behind at his workplace. He Gave DeMohrenschildt a copy in May that he captioned and signed. Sounds like he had a little pride in that image of himself, yet he forgot all about it.
So I guess he could have shot JFK and as he  placed the rifle down behind some boxes he suddenly remembered those photos and almost sh*t himself.
 But in reality if he really left his rifle and fingerprints at his workplace, then he never intended to get away with it. So then why would he lie about Neely St when he intentionally left a trail of breadcrumbs that would lead straight to him?

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

This crop of the life BYP makes the rifle scope even weirder and easier to see as a fraud.

The left hand photo is from Chris Barstow and the right hand photo is one that I have in my photos records and have used several times before including this thread.  My copy came off the internet.

I believe Jim said his came from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Chris,

This is what I saw on the shadow issue of Sandy Larsen:

Depending on the photo you can be right or wrong.

Not sure what you are demonstrating. The faint shadow that extends out from the bottom rear of the stock looks to me like it also sits just below the stock and lines up with the Sandy's shadow under the stock. That same shadow lays behind the butt and creates an illusion that the butt has a curvature to it. But you can see the shadow is a bit lighter than the butt and if you look close or play with the contrast the demarcation between the shadow and butt is visible.
 The photo on the right has a long arrow, is that representing the Sun's direction? Your shorter arrow shows the direction of the shadow but the shadow is misleading because it is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3d shadow. The shadow falls toward the side of his leg so the shadow is running into the background.
 We all know objects that run into the background(objects that have depth) will appear higher in the frame of the photo because depth is translated into height in a 2d image. ( actually objects appear higher if they are below the vanishing point and lower if above the vanishing point. everything with depth will be bent towards the vanishing point) So anytime an object in a photo has depth it will be distorted.
I recall the Sun was 47 degrees but would only cast a 47 degree shadow under certain conditions. First the shadow has to fall on a plain perpendicular to the camera. Second that plain has to sit at a 90 angle to the Sun. Oswald was facing 22 degrees away from the Sun.
 

On 6/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Here, of course, is the infamous pose as it appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  This is a print of the full image I used for the crop in the comparison above.

Jim, In this image I see the rear part of the scope is barley protruding at all. It is only about 1/3 as long as the rear portion in your comparison. Did you take the comp image from different copy of the Life Mag photo?
 

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Good point.  And, even if you could it would not be a significant difference.  I do no see any foreshortening that would decrease the length of any of the rifles that would significantly impact any analysis.  They are basically in a horizontal plane with little variance vertically or diagonally.

It is the magnification of the barrel end and how it decreases in a gradient as you move toward the rear. Barrel end to stock is a bit more magnified that from stock to bolt or bolt to butt etc. The simplest solution as to why that type of magnification happened is that the rifle or the camera was leaning (Actually the camera was pointed down a bit and would also cause some of that magnification). Any optical distortion of the camera or printing error would not be limited to the rifle.
When I put myself in Oswald's stance with the right leg back and the rifle against his thigh, I find the rifle leans barrel end towards the camera, even if I really suck my gut in.
 EDIT:  I deleted a paragraph about my speculation on the shadow because I realized it was no good.