Steve Thomas Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 9 hours ago, David Von Pein said: No, Steve, the shells have not been moved. In the poor-quality photo we see in CE512, we can barely see two of the shells, and the thing you might be thinking is a "shell" (closest to the cameraman) in CE512 is actually not a shell. It's a piece of paper or debris of some kind. Here's a higher-quality picture of the three bullet shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.... 9 hours ago, David Von Pein said: No, Steve, the shells have not been moved. In the poor-quality photo we see in CE512, we can barely see two of the shells, and the thing you might be thinking is a "shell" (closest to the cameraman) in CE512 is actually not a shell. It's a piece of paper or debris of some kind. Here's a higher-quality picture of the three bullet shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.... David, Thank you, but to my untrained eye, this looks like a higher quality resolution of CE510, not of CE 512. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 9 hours ago, Tom Hume said: I'll give it a go: The top photo is a close-up of Shell "A" from CE510, and the bottom photo is a close-up of Shell "A" from CE512. I used the CE510 and CE512 photo-versions that were posted on this thread. Looking closely, this version of CE510 appears to have a whole lot more pixels than its pixel-poor neighbor, CE512 (How come? Are there higher resolution photos out there for us to look at? Is there anything to be learned here?). CE510 (shell "A" close-up) CE512 (shell "A" close-up) Jim D, you wrote that in his book, John Armstrong had some interesting things to say about CE510 and CE512. Anything worth sharing? Steve Thomas asked, “The shells have been moved, haven’t they?” I'll say that shell “A” appears to be in a different spot. And I wonder if there is something fishy about CE512. Notice that the black circles are perfect, and that before the perfect black circles were added to the photo, some lighter circles had been drawn in by hand. Notice the lighter hand-drawn circle around shell “A” in CE 512. If that thing that looks more like cigarette butt than a shell casing is the reason for that circle, it’s not in the middle of the circle where it should be, but on the edge. Who would circle something and not place the object of interest in the middle? Tom, Just out of curiosity, I went looking for when CE510 and 512 were introduced as evidence. Maybe I just missed it, but I couldn't find it in the WC testimonies of Sims, Boyd, Johnson, Montgomery, Studebaker, or Day. I wondered who put those circles on those pictures and when; because as you said, the dark circles in 512 are too perfect. They are done by a machine and not by hand. When Day was questioned, he was given CE 716 to look at. Here's a comparison of 716 and 512. Notice the lighter pencil circles around the shells in 716 and then again in 512. Like you said, It looks like they are offset to me in 512. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 5 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: Just out of curiosity, I went looking for when CE510 and 512 were introduced as evidence Hi Steve: These two exhibits were introduced during the March 25, 1964 testimony session of Luke Mooney - 3H286, 3H287. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, Gary Murr said: Hi Steve: These two exhibits were introduced during the March 25, 1964 testimony session of Luke Mooney - 3H286, 3H287. Gary Gary, Thank you. That was the one guy I hadn't checked. I can't tell if he actually watched the DPD photograph the shells in situ. He talks about being upstairs long enough to be present when the rifle is found. Were the 510 and 512 photographs actually taken days later? Mr. BALL - They were turned over to Captain Fritz? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; he was the first officer that picked them up, as far as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up and look at them. As far as I could tell, I couldn't even tell what caliber they were, because I didn't get down that close to them. They were brass cartridges, brass shells. Mr. BALL - Is this the position of the cartridges as shown on 510, as you saw them? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is just about the way they were laying, to the best of my knowledge. I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area. But these cartridges--this one and this one looks like they are further apart than they actually was. Mr. BALL - How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location of the three cartridges? Mr. MOONEY - Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Below is an animated GIF of the two photos. PS - this file is quite large in file size so give it a moment to load. I combined them and took the middle shell of one (middle meaning the one that's touching the crack where the floorboards are joined) and made it almost the same size as the middle in the other and also lined them up. When you look at that shell - keep looking at it - it's obvious that the photographer either stepped closer to get a little bit of close up of the same scene or zoomed in. I'm guessing he stepped in as I can't imagine them using vari-zoom lenses back in '63 like they have today. Other things move like the size and angle of the boxes. That's to be expected due to perspective change. It becomes quite obvious that the shells and the scene in both photos have not been moved - the one thing that DOES move is the photographer. Therefore, the shells were not moved in any way. As another researcher likes to say elsewhere, I'm agnostic about what this proves except it shows that nothing was disturbed nor moved when the two photos were taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) Notice what Mooney says about the arrangement. They were closer together. This tends to suggest that both Alyea and Craig were correct. Someone dispersed them. BTW, you want to hear some real CYA? When this issue was creating a buzz in the nineties because of Twyman's book, Jeremy Gunn tried to reinvestigate it. He called in Mooney. Mooney now said that he was not the one who retrieved the shells even though the record would indicate that. When Gunn asked him how that could happen, Mooney said that the DPD did that a lot: the guy who signed the report was not the guy who actually retrieved the exhibit. Can you imagine if Oswald had stood trial and having him say that on the stand? I agree that the circles look machine added. The WC probably did that. But anyway, Armstrong writes in his book, on page 837, that the thinks that CE 512 has been altered. He thinks that a crude image of a case has been added right below mark A on CE 510. He also says that Ball suspected something was wrong with this image. I think he means this exchange: Mooney: There are two cartridges. Where is the third one? Ball: The third one is not in this picture. This is taken from another angle. (Vol, 3 p 287) What is Ball talking about? Is there an exhibit 511 that is from a different angle? Edited March 25, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Hi Jim The attached link will take you to the image that becomes CE511, again from the Luke Mooney testimony. As before, you can use the "zoom" feature to view the two cartridges visible in this image, closest to the wall. The third cartridge is not visible in this image because of the position/angle of the camera/cameraman. I do not believe the two cartridges you see in this image have been "moved" - they appear to me to be in the same position as those images taken from the other direction, with the cameraman standing in the corner behind the "snipers" box configuration; count/compare the bricks and note the position/makeup of the floor boards. Link: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49744/m1/1/?q=Texas%20School%20Book%20Depository Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) post deleted. Edited March 25, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: I agree that the circles look machine added. The WC probably did that. Yes, I agree. The dark circles in CE512 are undoubtedly not hand-drawn on the picture. The WC probably added the darker circles because the original circles were so light and dim, the Commission might have thought they wouldn't even be noticed. Hence, they merely accentuated the hand-drawn circles. The same thing happened with the two "machine" circles in CE511 (below). And my guess would be that the only reason they didn't add in three machine-enhanced circles in CE510 is because those original hand-drawn circles are bold and noticeable enough for everybody to easily see. So there was no need to "accentuate" the obvious there. As for why the WC didn't feel the need to "accentuate" the very dim hand-drawn circles we find in yet another Warren Commission exhibit showing the three bullet shells on the floor—CE716—I haven't the foggiest idea. But from a "dim" standpoint, CE716 needs accentuating more than any of the other exhibits. Edited March 25, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: David, Thank you, but to my untrained eye, this looks like a higher quality resolution of CE510, not of CE 512. It's neither one. It's a completely different picture altogether. Edited March 25, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, David Von Pein said: 16 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: David, Thank you, but to my untrained eye, this looks like a higher quality resolution of CE510, not of CE 512. It's neither one. It's a completely different picture altogether. Edit Hi David, This may be a trivial matter, but I beg to differ. Below is your high-quality photo from the Dallas Municipal Archives and CE512. They are different crops of exactly the same picture - two versions of exactly the same click of the shutter. High-quality photo from the Dallas Municipal Archives CE512 Again, it may be a trivial matter, but why are there two otherwise identical pictures where one important feature differs, vis-a-vis shell casing “A”? High-quality photo from the Dallas Municipal Archives CE512 Jim DiEugenio wrote: “Armstrong writes in his book, on page 837, that the thinks that CE 512 has been altered. He thinks that a crude image of a case has been added right below mark A on CE 510.” Edited March 25, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Is it possible that these photos, 510 and 512 are part of the reconstruction photos that were taken on November 25th? See the DPD Archives, Box 11, Folder# 37 and 38. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box11.htm I did not see the photographs of these shells listed among the scans provided in the DPD Archives in Boxes 11 and 12, but there are a bunch of photos and negatives that were not scanned and just listed as being taken of the TSBD. See Box 12A Folder# 27. If they were taken on the 25th, and were part of a "reconstruction", they'd be kind of useless. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tom Hume said: ...why are there two otherwise identical pictures where one important feature differs, vis-a-vis shell casing “A”? The fact that there IS a difference (i.e., the "cigarette butt"-like object near "Shell A" seen in CE512) is the proof right there that's telling me they are 2 entirely different snaps of the shutter. Edited March 25, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Notice what Mooney says about the arrangement. They were closer together. This tends to suggest that both Alyea and Craig were correct. Someone dispersed them. BTW, you want to hear some real CYA? When this issue was creating a buzz in the nineties because of Twyman's book, Jeremy Gunn tried to reinvestigate it. He called in Mooney. Mooney now said that he was not the one who retrieved the shells even though the record would indicate that. When Gunn asked him how that could happen, Mooney said that the DPD did that a lot: the guy who signed the report was not the guy who actually retrieved the exhibit. Can you imagine if Oswald had stood trial and having him say that on the stand? I agree that the circles look machine added. The WC probably did that. But anyway, Armstrong writes in his book, on page 837, that the thinks that CE 512 has been altered. He thinks that a crude image of a case has been added right below mark A on CE 510. He also says that Ball suspected something was wrong with this image. I think he means this exchange: Mooney: There are two cartridges. Where is the third one? Ball: The third one is not in this picture. This is taken from another angle. (Vol, 3 p 287) What is Ball talking about? Is there an exhibit 511 that is from a different angle? It's been so long since I read about this can you or someone else please refresh my memory about "Someone dispersed them". Alyea, was it Tom, a newspaper photographer or writer? Craig, not Roger Craig the deputy sheriff? They took pictures the afternoon of 11/22, came back and took more pictures...of a re creation? Has Gary Murr settled the 2 vs 3 shells found? In all honesty, if someone with experience in assassinations set up the snipers nest as the location of the lone assassin, and, the planned story included 3 shots only, would they have not dispersed 3 shells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) Hi David, You could be right, but I don’t think so. Please try this: In Photoshop or Affinity, overlay the two photos under discussion. I think you’ll find that they align perfectly. They’re not sort-of the same, they’re exactly the same. Exactly the same, except for, of course, the odd “cigarette butt” looking feature in CE512. I’ve convinced myself of this, but I lack the skills to demonstrate it to you. If anyone thinks this is at all important, do what Michael Walton did a few posts back. Put together one of those impressive back-and-forth photo-comparison video demonstrations. My bet is that the two photos under discussion will turn out to be the exact same release of the camera’s shutter. There are other possibilities, but they strain credibility. Edited March 26, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now