NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos” (CE-133-A, B, C) is different from “Oswald’s” so-called rifle and scope (CE 139)

[Jim Hargrove]

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.

At John A’s suggestion, I created the graphic above by rotating a “backyard photo,” cropping out just the rifle, and positioning it directly below the WC image of CE 139. The differences, including the scope’s relation of the rifle, seem quite obvious. Note also the color of the sling and the curvature of the end of the rifle butt.  John added the the pointers below to show the differences in the scope.

Below is a link to John’s soon to be released article on my website discussing this new development.  In short, the piece explains that the so called “Backyard photos” were being processed by Robert and Patricia Hester at the National Photography Laboratory in Oak Cliff long before they were officially “discovered,” and that the composite picture in the photo(s) is most likely Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald’s head placed on Roscoe White’s body, and that the whole Dial Ryder story was invented because initial prints of the backyard photos did not appear to show a scope mounted on the rifle.

This piece may not be in its final form yet.  I just finished uploading it to the server an hour or two ago, but it is already a kick-ass read!

https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html

[Jim Hargrove]

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.

[Ray Mitcham]

Jim, here is another rifle comparison, from some years ago. Something smells of rotten fish.

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Joe Bauer]

Wow!

The differences do seem clear.

The length of the scope from left to right is clearly different.

There is a deeper sunken curve in the top part of the rifle handle.

The back end of the handle does appear to be more curved in on the BYP rifle.

There seems to a different part between the top of the scope and the barrel at least in height and maybe in shape ... however the BYP pic is too grainy to be sure.

Was the BYP Oswald wearing his ring in this photo?

He may have but again the photo is too grainy to tell.

If Oswald wasn't wearing this, it adds at least some question as to the "body" part of the photo being someone else.

And I don't know if the BYP was photo shopped, but the size of Oswald's head ( and connected neck ) compared to his body in this photo is laughably way too big.  It is so overly large it doesn't look real!

It's as if the head of Oswald in this picture is 3 to 4 feet closer to the viewer than the body.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[David Andrews]

I wonder myself if the arms are Roscoe White's (taken from a similarly posed photo) the face a composite of White/Oswald, but the body some third person's.

[Joe Bauer]

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.

[Jim Hargrove]

I never noticed the head size before, but you make an interesting point, Joe.  A bit of quick research found an online page for comic book artists called “Understanding Basic Proportion of the Human Figure.”

This page suggests that, in an adult male, the head should be about one-eighth as long as the the entire body, from head to toe, which is called “The 8-Head Count.”  Rough measurements of the so-called picture of "Oswald" above indicate that the head is between a fifth and a sixth of the body height, much larger than it should be.  You might be on to something here....

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Richard Price]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

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.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I never noticed the head size before, but you make an interesting point, Joe.  A bit of quick research found an online page for comic book artists called “Understanding Basic Proportion of the Human Figure.”

This page suggests that, in an adult male, the head should be about one-eighth as long as the the entire body, from head to toe, which is called “The 8-Head Count.”  Rough measurements of the so-called picture of "Oswald" above indicate that the head is between a fifth and a sixth of the body height, much larger than it should be.  You might be on to something here....

It's "you" who may be on to something Jim.  You started this thread.

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Joe Bauer]

25 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

Chris B.

Considering your scientific photo analysis regards different angles and distances of the photo taking.

 

 

[David G. Healy]

3 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

 

Chris B.

Considering your scientific photo analysis regards different angles and distances of the photo taking.

 

 

 

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