Chris Bristow

The barrel end to the stock is larger in 133a because Oswald leaned the barrel end toward the camera and that magnified the barrel end of the rifle. Because the rifle will appear shorter the less perpendicular it is to the camera, leaning the barrel end toward the camera shrinks the 133a rifle overall. The shrinking is greater than the magnification, so to compare 133a and the FBI rifle  you have to increase the size of 133a which adds to the magnification of the barrel end.
What I can't make sense of is although 133a has to be enlarged for a sized comparison, the overlay I posted earlier shows the 133a buttstock fits inside the FBI image. It is a smaller image even though 133a was magnified. At the same time the distance from the top of the notch to the rear of the buttstock is equal. Maybe the right combination of distance to camera, angle to the camera and the rotation of the rifle may reproduce the distorted rifle in 133a. I have been attempting it with a Mauser but no success yet.

 

On 6/4/2019 at 12:02 PM, John Butler said:

Is this what you are talking about?

Those two objects in the Elm Street air just seem to be film blemishes or faults.

The arrow pointing towards the window indicates another film problem blemish.  In some frames it looks like someone is shooting a rifle in others it is just random blemishes.

People have noticed that before.  This is a good shot for an old problem.  There is no Officer Joe Marshall Smith under the Court Records windows as he said he was.

The lower blemish sits right where the traffic light facing West on Elm St was. Google Earth Street View places the current light right there too. I didn't find a good reference photo for the the 2nd light that hangs over the street but the second blemish is at about the correct location.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Anything is possible, I suppose, but despite all the speculation and conjecture, what is obvious now is that the famous rifle and scope from the BYPs does not appear to be the same rifle and scope put into evidence by the Dallas Police and the WC.  Anyone who wants to say the rifles/scopes were the same must now prove why they appear so different.

I will only quibble a little with this. You could also say it appears the image of the rifle and scope may have been tampered with. It could be a different scope used by Roscoe White or it is the same rifle with photographic alteration to bring out the dark image of the scope or correct an error in the cut and paste.
 When I draw a horizontal line along the scope and base it on the front and middle section it all looks good. But if I extend the line that was based on the front and middle thru the back of the scope it suddenly shows a pronounced angle. That rear section does not line up with the front and middle. I could be seeing things but take a look at that issue for yourself and see what you see.

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Chris Barstow's presentation is not comparable to yours.  I don't know whether he noticed or not, but his orientation of the two rifles in his presentation are different from yours.  His orientation says that the angle of the scope on both the BYP and WC rifles are the same.  Yours says they are not.

In this comparison, I used his method of showing angles.  The angles of the BYP scope is not the same as the WC scope.  In Chris's presentation he has them roughly the same. 

The greater length of the WC scope in relationship to the BYP scope is unarguable.

The different orientation angle (tilt) in IMO is also unarguable with the two scopes.  Enlarge the image above and you will see greater differences.  But, others may argue that to have an argument.

The butt of the stock IMO in the two rifles is different and that is unarguable.  But, others may suggest they are not the same due to shadows or some other detail.  An enlargement of the stock of the BYP photo shows there is not a shadow present obscuring the shape of the butt stock.  In the photos I have of the BYP 133a there is not enough resolution to clearly see the stock as is shown in Jim Hargroves photo.  So, I am relying on that photo which Jim has explained the provenance of clearly.  There should be a shadow on the trousers of the Oswald figure and I think you can see that.  But, that shadow is much lighter than any suggested for below the stock which might alter the shape of the stock.  Any shadow under the stock should match the shadow on the trousers.  And, that is not the case.  The downward angle orientation from the top of the stock matches the upward angle of the stock from the bottom of the stock. 

 

John, when I tried to do the overlay image I found the two rifles were not at the same angle. I rotated the FBI photo about 2 degrees counterclockwise. That is why they compare differently.  Using the 'Arbitrary line' from the barrel to the top of the butt as a baseline to measure scope angle will also give incorrect results. Notice in the overlay image the barrels are perfectly aligned vertically while the butt of 133a is  smaller(The top has a lower vertical position relative to the barrel). That means the arbitrary red line is at a steeper angle in the FBI photo than in 133a and that that throws off the scope angle comparison. The most accurate way, imo, to test the scope angle is to use the barrel for comparison.
 In another copy of 133a I noticed there is a shadow of the butt extending leftward at the very bottom rear of the buttstock. It is slightly visible above. It looks like it extends from a shadow under the stock which I assume is what Joseph said Sandy had referred to. Even if the is no shadow extending down from the stock, the underside of the stock is in shadow and, I think, is visible. It may be the reason the bottom of the stock looks rougher than the top is because the top is lit and the bottom is dark.

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

But the scope is significantly shorter compared to the rifle in CE 133-A than it is in CE 139, as the comparison photo below shows.   

You say, “I am suspicious that the the rear of the scope may be added in,” but how does adding something to the scope make it shorter than the scope of the rifle in evidence?

Anything added to 133-A altering the ratio of the length of the scope to the length of the rifle would have to REMOVE part of the scope.  

Not only would part of the scope have to be erased, but parts of “Oswald’s” clothing (and perhaps even his thumb in addition to clothing) would have to be added.

In the days prior to cloning tools in digital photo editors, this would have surely been a difficult task, and one that is difficult to find a motive for.

The dramatic difference between the lengths of the scopes in the two photos below is  the most obvious tell that these rifle/scope combinations are different.  It seems to me it is now up to a Warren Commission loyalist to prove otherwise.  Are we to believe them over our lying eyes?

Jim, regarding the rear part of the scope,  it is possible that if the rifle itself was added by the CIA, Maybe they accidentally  cut off the rear of the scope and had to draw it in. Another possibility is the photo came out too dark to show the scope and Life Magazine or someone else drew in the scope and the lighter pants behind it. It is also possible that it is a different scope as you say. I just don't what to think yet. Right now it looks to me like the rear portion does not align with the middle and front parts and that makes me wonder.

Looking at the notch on the top of the stock behind and below the scope and I noticed something that had fooled me. I thought the distance between the notch and the rear of the slide mechanism was too short, but it turns out the rifle in 133a is cocked. That pushes the slide to the rear about one inch.
      To me it looks like there is a shadow just behind the slide that fills in the long gradual line of the stock and makes the notch look extra short and deep. I think taking those two observations together explains the weird looking notch.
There are several points I want to make about the image below. First to Josephs point about the  butt of the stock having different angles than 133a, the lower image has an overlay of the two stocks in which you can verify that the angles do not match. The tops match but the bottoms do not. 133a is the smaller stock and fits inside the FBI/WC stock. How the 133a stock is smaller even though the length of the rifles matches maybe due to magnification of the barrel end of the rifle length in 133a. If the barrel is magnified then you would have to decrease the overall length of the rifle when comparing to the FBI photo. That would cause the stock to look smaller than the FBI image.
 On John Butlers point about the scopes being at different angles I found that in the FBI photo the scope does point slightly downward when compared to the barrel. Not as much as John found though. Looking at the overlay I made of the stocks it is apparent that the 133a image has a smaller stock making the top rear of the stock slightly lower than the FBI image. So using that point on the stock as a reference resulted in two different angles for 133a and the FBI photo making the difference in the scope angles appear greater than they are. Still the angle of the scope in the FBI photo does appear to angle down very slightly. I wonder if they realigned the scope for the test firing before or after the FBI photo was taken?
 The angle of the 133a scope is a different matter. In the magnified image of the 133a scope below it looks to me like the front and middle parts of the scope are aligned with each other. but the rear is not straight. It angles down and  does not align with the rest of the scope. I can't find any other Carcano image that does that. It is not rotation or the barrel leaning towards the camera, I can't find anything that would explain it. So I am suspicious that the the rear of the scope may be added in.
 Joseph pointed out something Jack White noticed about the white discoloration where the butt meets Oswald's pants. I have seen this many times before on photos that had no reason to be faked.  I don't know if it means something was faked in this instance because I have never come across a reason why those white areas happen in the first place.

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I just did a quick length measurement of Oswald's enormous head top to bottom as seen in the Life magazine photo above.

I wanted to then use that measurement on other points and objects in the photo.

Just with the newspaper or magazine Oswald is holding the length of his head top to bottom takes up 80% of the up and down vertical length of that paper.

Hopefully others can do the same with Oswald's up and down head length measurements and compare them to other fixed objects measurements in the photo.

Perhaps the staircase steps?

Very unscientific I know...but I still feel Oswald's head is way too big for his body in that Life Magazine picture.

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.

On 4/9/2010 at 7:01 AM, John Dolva said:

Not necessarily, Karl. It's an intriguing observation. There are ways that the horizontal parallax can stay stationary while filming. Zapruder could move as well so that the pan, to the extent of resolution and angle of movement, keeps the shift so one can't readily discern it. Of course parallax occurs in all directions and I think I see a slight dip that shows a shift in the vertical where the ornamentation on the lamp mount meets the dark area.

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.

On 6/29/2019 at 6:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.

 

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.

On 6/29/2019 at 6:20 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.

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.
 

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I don’t think so, Chris.  

Regardless of the angle of the rifles to the camera, even a brief observation of the above shows that the two scopes by themselves are different.  Note that in the top photo, the Carcano rifle placed in evidence as CE 139, the part of the scope extending behind the mount (toward the eye of the shooter) is significantly longer than the portion extending forward from the mount (in the direction of bullet travel).

But in the bottom image, showing the rifle Oswald was framed with from the “backyard photos,”  the same two parts of the scope are essentially equal in length.  For each of the two different scopes, viewed individually, these PROPORTIONS SHOULD NOT CHANGE, regardless of the angle the of the rifle to the camera. 

To me, at least, it seems quite obvious.  Do you disagree?
 

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.

12 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I disagree Chris, as the lengths of the both rifles are not the same in your comparison, they cannot be compared. The right rifle appears much shorter than the left  one, due as you say to the photo of the left  one leaning back at a greater angle  than the right one. If you compare photos of the same  rifle where both photos show they are the same length, then  the relative points on two rifles must match.

 

Chris, despite it being further away from the camera, if you scale the right photo up till the two rifle  lengths match, you will find that the other parts should match. (Because the ratios of each part to the overall length of the rifle stay the same whether near or far away.©Father Ted Crilly)

 

 

 

 

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.

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

While it is useful to pay attention to the analyses made by the HSCA and it's "experts", I wouldn't put a lot of faith in them. They need careful scrutiny.

Here's how to test their claim that Oswald's head was large because it was near the edge where the imperfect lens stretches the image. Simply look at the other backyard photos. Are the heads stretched in all of them? If not, why not? Weren't they all in roughly the same area of the camera's field of view?

 

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.

4 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

 

What is this? And how is it related to the Dealey Plaza alleged murder weapon? Thanks.

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.

22 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

i am by no means an expert on photo interpretation or the effects of camera lenses on the end product, but it would seem logical to me that if the head were enlarged due to the distortion, then all other objects appearing in the same general area should also exhibit the same effect.  I see no such variation in the fence boards, 4x4 posts, etc.

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.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Does anyone else here see Oswald's head in the BYP picture as being almost freakishly too big for his body?

Maybe my sense of physical body part size comparisons is just wrong.

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.

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

My feeling is that Connally reacts to his first hit at about Z-290, while he is still turned in his seat to look at JFK.  If this is the back wound, then he is likely shot from a building to the southeast, on Houston Street or Commerce Street. 

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.