Chris Bristow

This brings you right to page 212 of the HSCA report and their test photo thru Oswald's camera. The head increases in size when higher up in the frame. In fact you can see it better in the slats on the side or the size of the window. I don't know if it was faked but it is worth considering. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=218&tab=page

People believe want they want to believe. It is just amazing how much dis information is out there and accepted as fact. Many still think the Mueller exonerated Trump, that he did not lay out multiple crimes. Mueller did use the word exonerate but only to state that they could NOT exonerate him. Mueller said if they found Trump was innocent he would have said so and exonerated Trump. But Mueller said we CANNOT exonerate him. Muller laid out multiple cases of obstruction which Barr misrepresented so badly that 1000 former federal DOJ members signed an open letter saying Barr lied and there is so much evidence of obstruction that it is not even a close call. All 1000, both republicans and Democrats, said if Trump was not currently the sitting president they would have indicted him. Mueller also at said that part of the reason he did not find enough evidence on collusion/conspiracy is because many witness took the 5th, others lied and were prosecuted for the lies. Trump also obstructed the investigation and many witness were Russians outside the country who did not honor the subpoenas. Barr also lied when he said Mueller failed to come to a conclusion on indictment and left it up to Barr. That was a lie. Barr also said he did not get Muellers reason for not making a decision on indictment. But Muellers decision was based on DOJ guidelines. Barr is the Attorney General and he does not know the DOJ guidelines? I am stating all this because many Trump supporters either have no clue about these facts or ignore them. But there is a place the Trump supports usually trust and that is Fox news. So I suggest Trump supports who are unaware of the facts or think it is fake news simply watch Fox news folks like Judge Napolitano or Shep Smith, Bret Baier, or Chris Wallace. Unlike the Fox opinion side these folks are stating the truth about the Mueller report. I hope the die hard supporters will accept the facts that come straight from Fox News. A good example of disinformation occurred when a member of Mueller's team, FBI agent Struck got caught sending anti Trump emails to the woman he was having an affair with. Makes him sound like a bias Clinton lover right? Well Fox never reported that he had other emails bashing Chelsea Clinton and Eric Holder. Many in law enforcement have disdain for ALL politicians cause they lie so much. He was not the Clinton lover he was made out to be. At this time in history it is crucial that we take the time to learn the true facts and become informed voters. Both side have their bubbles but I think it is time for die hard Trump supporters to accept the truth of this presidency. Please watch Shep Smith and Judge Napolitano and be open to the harsh truth they convey.

John was right. If Zapruder shifted his position just 4 inches(Assuming that is how far he panned the camera) it would completely negate the parallax. Zapruder rotated his stance to the right as he panned. he was facing East then rotated around to the West as the limo passed by. This is visible in the Nix film. To rotate he would lean slightly to the left as he took the weight off his right foot so he could swing it backward allowing him to bring his left foot around to face West. That initial lean to the left would have negated much or all of the parallax. His rotating stance shows up in the Z film as a slight retrograde motion of background objects around frame 300 but he still could have started the shift around frame 260. The lamppost was about half as far away from Z as the wall in the background was from the lamppost, so 4 inches of panning would cause about twice as much parallax. If you look closely at the shadows in the bushes just left of the lamppost you will see that several inches of parallax is happening.

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

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

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

Jim, yes I agree with your premise about the rear half of the scope. The perspective can account for the overall length differences of the rifle and to some degree the size of separate parts. But the rear of the scope is too long compared with the front of the scope. The only problem I question now is about the source of the backyard photo. I have studied 133a and spent a lot of time searching for the best contrast of Oswald's right hip. I have never found any image that showed the end of the scope clearly. There are some enhanced or shopped version of 133a that show the butt and rear of the scope and Life Magazine has said they shopped their image a bit to make the butt and scope clearer. I will look at the encyclopedia copy.

I thought at first you meant to say they are two different rifles but they are the same rifle. On your point about ratios staying the same consider that the closer an object is to the camera the larger it appears. When the butt of the gun is closer than the barrel the butt will seem larger than it is in relation to the barrel.

The ruler in the WC image CE139 shows it has no distortion like in the yardstick comp. But 133a has the rifle leaning forward at the barrel and Marina was pointing the camera slightly downward. This caused the same distortion as in the yardstick comp. note in 133a that from the end of the barrel to the stock is longer than Jim's comp image. but as you move down towards the butt in 133a that difference gets smaller and smaller.This verifies that the rifle in 133a is not on the same plane as the cameras lens was, that is the reason why it is longer at the barrel end. (The 133a rifle is rotated a bit more than the WC rifle so it has less height to it and the distance between the scope and chamber is also less. Most of the scope in 133a is the same length as the scope in the WC. Only the last portion is longer but I can't find the end in 133a like it shows in Jim's comp. One last thing. There is what looks like the shadow of the scope on Oswald's leg and it is really long. It makes it look like some of the rear scope image was cut off.

Ok here is a good comp. 2 photos of a yardstick, one in front and one at 20 degrees off to the side. I aligned them at the 36 inch point which represents the end of the barrel. Notice how from 30 to 36 inches the red lines(20 degree angled image) are wider apart than the blue lines. This means the end of the barrel will be over magnified compared to the rest of the rifle. As you go from the barrel to the butt the distance between the red lines get shorter and shorter until at the other end the yardstick is a couple inches shorter. Once you have this extra short image you have a new problem. If you enlarge it to match other images in length the parts of the rifle like the scope will become larger than life. But there are also some odd features. The initial shrinking causes the left half of the scope to shrink more than the right half because as you can see from the red lines, the rifle gets shorter and shorter the more you move from the barrel to the butt. So comparing the scope to the bolt may not be consistent with other measurements of the front of the scope.

Sandy, the higher in the frame the head appeared the larger it was. At least according to the HSCA test photos with a dummy head. That said I don't fully trust them either.

I just did a test using a yardstick photographed from 7 feet. One straight in front of the yardstick and one 20 degrees off to the side. In the 20 degree shot the right side of the yarstick became measurably longer and the left side shorter when compared to the non angled shot. I will do a clearer version and post it.

David it simply shows how the proportions of a rifle can be greatly distorted by a small change in the angle of the rifle to the camera. I believe this is the reason behind the different sizes of Carcano images from Dallas pd, FBI and others.

In trying to check the point about the post not being enlarged I find 133b and c are magnified more than 133a. The crossbars on the picket fence are smaller in 133a so it would have to be sized before checking the post above Oswald's head against 133 b and c.

Yes I agree. some of the distortion is stretching and so won't show up in the vertical posts. Exposure can also make things look wider as they get brighter and makes it hard to compare. As I posted I thought of that issue and remembered I had looked at it closely several years ago. Thought I resolved it to my satisfaction but Can't remember it clearly. The size difference would be small but cutting and pasting a part of the post from 133 b or c and placing it over 133a may make for an interesting comp.

The issue of the conflicting images of the Carcano was also brought to light by Jack White. Here is his comparison of the Dallas PD, WC/FBI and National Archives photos. What I found is that all these images are the same rifle taken from different angles. I have lost one important photo that shows an uncropped version of the Dallas PD photo. The camera was just outside the door(I guess because the room was too small to step back and get a full image). The result was the rifle was photographed from an angle of maybe 25 degrees. This caused the proportions of the rifle to become very distorted. The butt of the gun became much smaller relative to the barrel and scope. This size distortion increases in a constant gradient as you move from barrel to butt and is measurable. There is also a second distortion that happens when you try to size two of these images for comparison. The Dallas PD image is not only proportionally distorted, the distortion of the butt has also shortened the length of the rifle overall. So when you size it to equal length with another image for comparison you have to increase the size of the Dallas image more than is realistic. This means everything in the Dallas image will be over enlarged(Except the butt because it was made so small by the proportional distortion . This is the case in the original comparison Jim provided and is why objects like the scope are bigger in the Dallas image. Jack Whites comparison above is set up differently. In it he matches the scope sizes which reveals the Dallas rifle to have a shorter appearing stock and shorter overall length. In the example below the camera is about 10 feet away and the bottom of the rifle on the left is only about 4 inches closer to the camera. comparing left to right you can see the triggers line up. From the trigger to the top end of the stock there is little size difference. But from the triggers to the bottom of the rifle the image is very distorted and looks much longer than the image on the right. It was only a 4 inch difference from 10 feet away that caused the butt of the rifle to appear several inches longer. After taking multiple photos from different angles I found that the relative proportions of the butt vs the barrel, the gradient nature of those proportional differences and the over enlarging that resulted when sizing the image with a non distorted image, was the same as in the rifle comparisons of the FBI,Dallas PD and archive images. There is an image used in comparison that was not shown on this thread, that is the photo taken in front of the TSBD. In that picture the butt of the rifle is swung upward and is closer to the camera. That created the same basic proportional distortion as in my comp of the rifle below.

Joe, this issue was taken up by the HSCA. I think it was Jack White who originally pointed it out. The HSCA took test photographs with Oswald's camera and found it magnifies and stretches objects near the top of the frame. His head appears biggest in 133a where his head is located higher in the frame. You can find the test photos in the HSCA report and it looks like they are making a valid case. I am not saying they are right or wrong but they show compelling evidence that the large head is due to the distortion of the cheap Imperial Reflex camera.

From the beginning of Project Bluebook in 1948 they documented that something(Natural or alien) was moving thru our atmosphere with acceleration, hovering ability and turn rates that far exceeded our capabilities. That fact alone would have caused the entire issue to be classified by the military. Imagine how exited our military was about the potential of harnessing it regardless of whether it was alien or natural. Imagine the pucker factor when they considered the possibility of the Russians figuring it out first! So I find it impossible to believe that JFK would casually mention it to one of his aides. The aid in question has his face blacked out so I assume even the full video would not give his name. It should also be noted that the 'Sirus Project', even though they have tons of videos, is not taken too seriously in the UFO community anymore. They used to be respected and the hundreds of military and other government contractors who have come forward in the Sirus Project is still impressive. Now in days the Sirus Project is viewed by many in the same way JFK CT'ers view anything that comes from the 6th floor museum.

Yes and I have to assume he was hit around that time. I can't see a 60+ year old guy who is not in an fight or flight mode and who has been hit in a vital organ(The lung) having a five second delay to being shot. You would think that as he twisted his body to the right he would have exhaled and sent a lot of air and blood out of his sucking/blowing chest wound.

I have heard that a shell was found there. It is interesting. I could see finding a round or a fragment but not sure how you explain a shell. Although if you are into shooting you likely pick up your brass so it is possible a workman on the roof had a spent shell in his pocket from another day and it fell out onto the roof. I have had single shells in my pocket after packing up to leave and finding one last piece of brass under my foot. I am reaching with that but they are so into guns there that a spent shell anywhere is feasible. It used to be that on the new year at midnight about a million rounds get fired into the air. We would sit under a covered porch in Pasadena, Ca and count the rounds as they hit the street, a roof, a car. One landed every 15 or 20 seconds. So I would expect to find a lot of lead in Dealey Plaza.

I would think it was a miss intended for JFK. What frame do you think Connally was hit in? I can't see how it could have that trajectory through his body unless he was facing almost straight forward which places the shot very early around 235. In the past I have given weight to both the Connally's opinions that he was hit as he turned 'back' around from right to left.

Like many people I find it very hard to believe that Connally lost 4 inches of rib on his right side then turned that direction to see JFK. He said he turned as far as he could! According to Cyril Weicht, in addition to his wrist injury he also had the tendon to his right thumb severed. But he not only managed to hold on to his Stetson for 5 seconds, he articulated his wrist to bend downward in order to fit his Stetson between himself and the door as he turned. Connally said he was hit as he turned back around but when JFK was hit in the head Connally had only turned half way back. That would mean the bullet that entered his back and exited under his nipple had to have come from somewhere like the old courthouse. Could it have come from the East and changed direction upon striking the rib? I don't know. I have a vague memory of a CT about a gunman on the roof. wondering if anyone has thoughts on any of this.

I still have a nagging doubt about the lamppost theory, like there is something I am missing, something I still need to learn. But what I can check supports it. I assume the Barnes photo is not pincushion corrected but I doubt it could account for the difference we can see and for the vertical and horizontal keystone effect that should be hiding some of the rightward lean that Dr Costella's comparison reveals. Maybe some of Barne's other Dealey photos will give a clue as to how much distortion his camera had. What is this GIF you posted? The cars make it look like the photos are taken less than a second apart yet the Stemmons perspective changes. What is up with that?

I was very suspicious of the extreme keystone effect in the Barnes image and the fact that the lamppost is near the edge of the image while the Costella panorama took the lamppost image from frame 270 in which the lamppost is centered in the frame. Now I think I can put my keystone concerns aside because those effects would cause the lamppost to lean more to the left not to the right as in the Z film. That lends support to the Costella theory and so I think I can say that keystoning( both vertical and horizontal) is not the cause of the lamppost anomaly. What I did find is that the difference in the leaning lampposts between the Barnes and Costella image is only about 3/4 of one degree. The red line on the lamppost in the Costella panorama was slightly off and added to its rightward lean. With a small difference of 3/4 of one degree it becomes harder to rule out some of the subtle camera distortions like pincushion. So in the end much of what I found supports The lamppost theory but because the error is only 3/4 of a degree I can't be sure of anything. It looks to me like the Barnes image has not been pincushion corrected and that would cause the lamppost to lean slightly farther left. That may be the cause of the anomaly. But because the effect is so small you would need to reproduce the photos with the same camera.

David, there are some facts that I neglected to state, sorry for that. On Dr Costella's website his comparison photo is the 'Barnes' photo taken very near Zapruders location. I think he was an FBI photographer or employed by a local newspaper. Dr Costella compares it to an image of his panorama and the lamppost looks to be from frame 361 of the Z film. The footage I used is from Youtube and I didn't check if it was pincushion corrected. Pincushion would cause the pole to swing from left to right as it moves across the screen and would cause the angle between wall and lamppost to decrease not increase So I discounted the need to account for pincushion related to the lamppost. I checked the wall in the Ytube image and it has a very small amount of pincushion curvature and imo would not come close to accounting for the change in angles. Objects on the horizontal center line of a photo are displaced horizontally and the top of a wall on the horizontal middle line is displaced horizontally and so there is little to no angular change of the top of the wall in that case. The closer to that center line the less angular deviation. The Ytube video has the top of the wall much closer to that center than to the top. In the Z film the wall is almost at the top of the frame and exhibits much more curvature because of that(And an old style camera). But even the zfilm distortion would not account for the large change of angle seen in the Ytube video. I don't have the info on the camera Barnes used but I wanted just to point out that every copy of that image I have seen is very distorted. It is strange just how much change there is in the Ytube video. I will have to reproduce the situation in miniature and see if I can duplicate the change of angle. ( I usually do that before posting, oh well)If I can't reproduce it I will consider that I made a mistake, and the change in vanishing point perspective I theorized would cause the change of angle is not enough to even measure. Thanks for the input.