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)

[Chris Bristow]

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.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

 

Jim,

Do you have the source image from which the bottom photo (of the two above) was taken? I know you didn't take that from your Life magazine cover because that one doesn't show a curved rifle butt, and the back end of the scope cannot be made out in it.

I searched and searched online for a backyard photo showing those things and other details as seen in your photo and could find none. I'm left wondering if you are the victim of someone else's touching up.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The HSCA took test photographs with Oswald's camera and found it magnifies and stretches objects near the top of the frame.

 

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?

 

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

 

Yeah... don't forget, they were the rascals who disregarded what the autopsists reported and moved all the wound positions up!

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

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.
 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

 

Thanks Chris. Your image compellingly demonstrates the need to be very cautious in comparing sizes, distances, and angles in images.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

12 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

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)

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

Do you have the source image from which the bottom photo (of the two above) was taken? I know you didn't take that from your Life magazine cover because that one doesn't show a curved rifle butt, and the back end of the scope cannot be made out in it.

I searched and searched online for a backyard photo showing those things and other details as seen in your photo and could find none. I'm left wondering if you are the victim of someone else's touching up.

 

Sandy,

I did a Google image search for the backyard photo with the clearest view of the dark rifle and scope against the dark clothing worn by who we think was Roscoe White. According to Google, the one I selected was from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA and seemed to have the the most complete grey scale and thus the most observable detail. 

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

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?
 

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

Chris,

According to Google Images, the photo I captured, rotated and cropped was from Britannica.  I selected it because the image seemed clear and had extended grey tones bringing out additional details.  

To see a Google Image search based on the Britannica image, CLICK HERE.

There appear to be scores of identical images all over the world.

As I understand it, based on John A’s research, ALL the backyard photos officially entered into evidence (CE 133-A, B, and C) are so poor that a scope can’t even be seen against the dark clothing worn by who we suspect was Roscoe White with Oswald's head.  John wrote, 

Life Magazine allegedly obtained a copy of 133-A (below) from FBI agent James Martin, who was entrusted with the care and protection of Marina Oswald. This photo, however, was an enhanced version of 133-A that was found by the Dallas Police. It showed more detail and now a scope could be seen on Oswald's rifle. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY DALLAS POLICE, and the origin and source of this photo (below) remain unknown. FBI Agent Martin should have been asked who gave him this photo.

Enhanced version of 133-A. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY THE DALLAS POLICE.

On February 21, 1964 Life Magazine published a 3rd version of CE 133-A that was retouched and showed even more details of the rifle and scope.

 

The biggest problem we have, as I see it, is that it was never explained how LIFE magazine obtained such an enhanced copy of CE-133A.  In my opinion, it looks like the magazine editors had access to a negative, which was not supposed to exist.