PHOTO OF OSWALD IN TSBD WINDOW

[Jim Glover]

To me the figure in the original and all the others seems to be looking down and more of the head is seen on the East side of the face probably because the photo was taken a little to the East of the corner as we can see the fire escape. But the Mug shot of Oswald is a straight on photo so they do not match entirely for me but the resemblance is too striking for me to believe with certainty to be only dirty windows when it appears the shadow of the pane frame is seen on the face and down, a much bigger shadow than from any other window frame as it would on something behind the dirty window. Also I wonder why the face in the West window with or without enhancement is so unclear when that window was open at the time. Was this from the so called "un-cropped" version?  I suppose that would have been in the negative destroyed by too much radiation during the House Committee on Assassination hearings.  Why would anyone expose a negative to radiation or ex-rays? 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Jim Glover
English

[Jim Glover]

It seems if this article is true, at least Kodak knew that film is destroyed by xrays and radiation. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/kodak-had-weapons-grade-uranium-in-their-basement-6a6c15d5677f?source=email-b388f9c27a62-1558438049575-digest.reader------2-58------------------d9cdd377_8f38_45dd_9efd_05d021f080ff-1&sectionName=top

[David Andrews]

On 4/24/2019 at 12:57 AM, Jim Glover said:

OK David you think it is "Superimposed" on a blob or Fake?  I doubt that without proof of Who Faked it, When, How and Why because you are in a sense describing a crime. So who are the criminals, Tom Dillard? Does he have a record of being a criminal or trying to frame Oswald?  And since the dirty windows make the figure hardly noticeable why did it take so many decades for the figure to even be noticed until the public had the computer tools to examine it closely?  Seems like a lot of work which I am not convinced it was even possible in 1963 by that night when Tom Dillard printed his Photo or that he even knew that the coup would be using Oswald as the "Lone Nut" by that night after he got back from Parkland. Also seems unlikely just because of the risk if exposed to the Paper and Tom Dillard. So is Tom Dillard a bad guy or his newspaper bad guys for faking the photo and exhibit for what purpose, if It wasn't used to prove it was Oswald at anytime even today? If you think it was Faked?  Convince me.

For me it is more likely for reasons I have given that it is Oswald or a look-alike, more then the crime of destroying and falsifying evidence. I see no purpose for what you think without evidence of how, who, when and why the risk was taken with no purpose since it was never even noticed. Like I explained, even if it could be proved it is Oswald that does not prove he was the "Lone Nut Shooter in the Sniper Window" during a crossfire ambush with the cover-up being the Coup.  If you have proof or evidence with motive of your accusations I would want to hear it. So where was Oswald... who can even prove that?  

One thing has changed in this discussion. At first the figure was just a shape of the dirt on the dirty window. But now, another crime. So, this relatively new discovery has challenged most researchers who have invested years without Oswald's whereabouts proved so far.  I think I understand yours and other's suspicion of another crime of Falsifying Evidence and that's OK by me.  I can't prove it is Oswald or his Look-alike but I find it very compelling to be so.

You have a good question: "If that's a face in the window in this version, are the eyes canted more toward the figure's right than in the Oswald version, as if the head is cocked downward to that side?" 

He does appear to be looking down and If Oswald told Capt. Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelly, by looking down he could possibly see Shelly who testified he was out on that island away from the steps. How would he know where Shelly was if he did not see him?

There is no proof about much in this case. We have our beliefs about it after 55 years of killing, confusion, fear, decoys and cover-ups. Nothing we do or say will bring back JFK, Lee or the many people killed and hurt about this manufactured mystery. One thing Oswald said to a reporter in the Hallway, "Of course I was in the building... I work there!"  He could have cracked the case at trial if allowed to defend himself but Ruby made sure that would not be. Thanks David for noticing the figure appears to be looking down.

Happy Spring!

. 

As I've tried to say out in my point about how people who really want to see something look through the unobstructed pane and not around the obstructing frame pieces, the very fact that the Oswald "face" is quartered by the cross framing makes the image suspect.  Recent posts above that show how the figure's lower body is missing add to the suspicion.

[Jim Glover]

"

No Problem David. I don't see why the face in the middle of the window frame is suspicious or the fact that a face close to the dirty window would be barely seen because a face reflects more light than the clothes especially if the face is close to the window as it appears to me the face is looking down. The face was hard to make out until it was pointed out fairly recently (over 50 years). It would be nice if a body with clothes on reflected more light but I don't believe the photographer even noticed the face and nobody has it seems for all these years. It is OK with me about suspicion in this case. 

[Chris Bristow]

On 4/22/2019 at 11:20 PM, Jim Glover said:

Thanks Denis, Bad Idea to give anyone an important negative. This seems to be a pattern.

I don't use Blevin's enhancements.  The Commission Exhibit was printed more than a decade before the negative was ruined by someone at HSCA. And it does not show anyone in the "snipers window".

Both of the guys in this photo have very dark shadows on their  necks but the fake image of Oswald shows his neck clearly. The lighting on his neck looks like the same intensity as on his face.

 

 

[Jim Glover]

Well Chris, it could be the difference between direct sunlight on the faces of the workers and the shadow of their faces on their necks while the face in the window does not have direct un-obstructed sunlight on the face behind the dirty window as that light is diffused and darkened greatly by the dirty window diffusing contrast without the direct sunlight on the faces of the workers. I do see a shadow of the pain on the bottom of the nose of the Oswald looking figure going down over the chin and then widening as the neck would be farther away from the window than the face.  I also notice on our face in the window there is just very slightly more light on the west side (sunny side of the neck). Also there is a sliver of bright direct sunlight on the west side of the neck of the guy in the window on our left.  So, You are looking at two different lighting situations and positions as the guys are kneeling and have no dirty window in the way to diffuse the light... less contrast. Two different lighting environments give different lighting effects in my estimation. I would see your point if there was no closed dirty window but then we wouldn't be trying to figure this out.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Jim Glover
spelling

[Chris Bristow]

On 5/23/2019 at 7:56 PM, Jim Glover said:

Well Chris, it could be the difference between direct sunlight on the faces of the workers and the shadow of their faces on their necks while the face in the window does not have direct un-obstructed sunlight on the face behind the dirty window as that light is diffused and darkened greatly by the dirty window diffusing contrast without the direct sunlight on the faces of the workers. I do see a shadow of the pain on the bottom of the nose of the Oswald looking figure going down over the chin and then widening as the neck would be farther away from the window than the face.  I also notice on our face in the window there is just very slightly more light on the west side (sunny side of the neck). Also there is a sliver of bright direct sunlight on the west side of the neck of the guy in the window on our left.  So, You are looking at two different lighting situations and positions as the guys are kneeling and have no dirty window in the way to diffuse the light... less contrast. Two different lighting environments give different lighting effects in my estimation. I would see your point if there was no closed dirty window but then we wouldn't be trying to figure this out.

Jim, I considered the different lighting but it still seemed like the neck would be in shadow. Some illumination from the lower part of the window could bounce up under his neck but it looked too bright to me. 
Edit: I just looked at the azimuth and elevation and now I am convinced that there should be a shadow under his neck. The elevation of the Sun was 39 degrees so if the top of the window is 7 feet then the shadow would land on the floor about 8 feet back. That means Oswald could stand 2 feet back from the window and the Sun would still directly hit his entire face. Others have verified that his height of 5'9" seems correct in the window. He has to be right behind the window for it to appear that way. As soon as he moved back his height relative to the window would quickly decrease.
The Azimuth at 12:30 was between 9 and 13 degrees.  I knew that before but sort of forgot and was surprised because the photo makes it look like a steeper angle. But it would allow for the light to hit his face.
The extra light on the right side of his face looks to me like glare off the window. I can't see anything that resembles his face in that bit of extra light. The shadow under his nose is a bit weird too. Looking at the two guys in the window below you can see the nose shadow is much shorter. Also you can see the guy on the left is looking to his right which brings his left ear into the Sun. The other guy is looking almost straight ahead like the Oswald image but his ear is hidden in shadow while Oswald's left ear is fully lit.
So if we know Oswald was getting direct Sunlight on the front of his face yet his neck and left ear appear to be just as bright as face, that is a problem. No glare from the window is going to match direct sunlight in intensity.
 So the Sun would have definitely cast a shadow down his neck, the only judgement call is how much did the dirty window block and how much did it reflect light up under his chin. Personally I don't think the dirty window would obscure or prevent the neck shadow or cast enough diffuse light on his neck to illuminate it.
 I know there are people who would say dissecting this image is stupid because we know it is a fake. But when we debate things like this it gives insight into how a fake can be spotted. 

Edited May 25, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Jim Glover]

Good Point I didn't even consider the light from the lower window. Just to show how the dirty windows play with decreasing the light I notice that when the bottom windows are Pulled up so that there are two dirty windows to block light it looks like no transparency at all like at first i thought the upper windows had plywood or paper behind them. 

[Chris Bristow]

1 minute ago, Jim Glover said:

Good Point I didn't even consider the light from the lower window. Just to show how the dirty windows play with decreasing the light I notice that when the bottom windows are Pulled up so that there are two dirty windows to block light it looks like no transparency at all like at first i thought the upper windows had plywood or paper behind them. 

Yes the glare does make it look like it blocks all the light. The angle of the photo helps do that since the angle of the Sun at 39 and the camera angle to the window are similar. If the Sun hits the window at 39 degrees then the greatest glare will  be seen by anyone who views the window from a similar but opposite angle. I guess the camera angle was around maybe 55 degrees. I will check that. there is another photo on this thread taken from inside with several people standing at the window. The sharp shadows on the floor give an idea of how much light was blocked by the dirty window.