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)

[John Butler]

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Not all of the images in these collections are claimed to have been among Classic Oswald’s® possessions, at least I don’t think so.  John A. was the only person I know of who sat at the National Archives and looked at every photo—front and back—in the so-called Oswald’s possessions collection.  He said, from memory, that there were probably fewer than 30 or 50 in total.

Some were what you would expect, including the Bronx Zoo and New Orleans, and some from the Far East, and a number of pictures were in the distinctive Minox camera format.  He also said there were some that made no sense, such as photos of the Roman Colosseum and from London.  

Jim,

There is something like 400+ photos in the Ferrell pdf.  Some are repeats and some are simply not viewable.  Many of the well known photos from books or the internet are in better viewing shape than the ones found in the pdf.  This leads me to believe that there were other sources for these photos and the ones in the pdf were modified and just thrown in to have a photo file.  Probably wrong on that.  I haven't had a chance to look at these photos in detail, just scanning through the collection.  There is not a good numbering or description system.  There are some early photos in the collection that Marina Oswald was asked to identify.  But, relating those to the photos is difficult.

There were a lot of military photos.  Oswald seems to have spent a lot of time in the field for a "tech guy".  There seems to be joint operations between the army and marines in these photos.  I'll look at those closer to see if that's so.

In the Japanese scene I posted earlier when I first saw that there leaped to mind the VD in the line of duty thing found in his medical records.  I wonder how many marines came up with VD being stationed in Japan.  In Korea in 1967 the odds were 70 % of all GIs would catch that particular disease. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

"Also note that the 201 file images also include quite a few photos which are the Paine's'. The first set, in Commission Documents, is a more accurate reflection of what can be dubbed the "Oswald photos". And many of those were taken by other people. Your observation that he took less photos as time went on is correct. The HSCA , via Cecil Kirk, tried to imply otherwise."

Jeff,

Thanks for that tip.  It will be easier trying to identify things. 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/2/2019 at 9:24 AM, John Butler said:

Jim,

The orientation of the BYP rifle in relation to the orientation of the WC rifle IMO doesn't matter that much.  The two rifles do not need to be parallel in order to show that the WC rifle's scope tilts downward and the BYP rifle tilts slightly upward.  Or, is at least the BYP rifle scope is in the same plane as the red line I drew from the butt to the front end of the rifle.  You can put the BYP rifle in a vertical position and that would still be the same.  The WC rifle's scope points significantly downwards.  This differs from the BYP scope suggesting a different mount.  You can also see the shirt of the Oswald figure through the BYP scope mount and that indicates a different scope mount.  Some may say this is simply light reflecting off the metal of the mount and this may be true.  However, that light area has the same quality as light areas on the shirt of the Oswald figure.  The front end of the BYP scope is larger as indicated by the sloping line at the bottom of the front part of the scope.  If not larger at least shaped differently.

The BYP's bolt handle protrudes lower than the wooden stock of the rifle in comparison to what is shown in the above CE 139 exhibit.  One would ordinarily think that this is simply due to camera angle or the orientation of the rifle in the BYP photo.  But, the butt stocks seem to be in a vertical position in both photos.  Mean while the front of the BYP rifle seems to be orientated slightly towards the back of the photo.  If you look at the front part of the rifle, particularly the barrel, you will notice that the outline is rough and jagged indicating the rifle is a cut and paste item. 

The Oswald figure's long spidery fingers do not appear to be natural either.  The bolt handle appears to be painted on when compared to the WC rifle, CE 139.  It is not perfectly symmetrical as the bolt handle in the WC rifle photo.  In the BYP photo the trigger, trigger guard, and magazine do not appear to be there.  But, on lightening the photo they are there.

John,

Thanks again for those fine comparison lines at the top of your post.  There appear to be a number of differences between the two rifle images, but the length of the scopes is the most dramatic and obvious, made even more obvious by your thin lines which obstruct little in either image.  

After more study, I’m beginning to see what you mean about the scope tilt.  If I’d been able to better align the two images, it would probably be more obvious. QUESTION: Shouldn’t the tilt be the same in such similar rifles, and, if it isn’t, wouldn’t at least one of the scopes have to be improperly aimed?

As for the “spidery fingers,” not sure if that is an issue or just an optical oddity, but we do think the fingers belong to Roscoe White, along with the body and wide chin.  Roscoe White is shown at left in the photos below.

As John wrote, “Roscoe White worked in the photographic department of the Dallas Police Department. Roscoe and his wife, Geneva, moved to Dallas in 1963. White began working at the Dallas Police Department on October 7, 1963 (likely hired by Capt. Westbrook, who was in charge of the personnel department), while his wife worked for Jack Ruby in the Carousel Club…. Roscoe White continued working for the Dallas Police until Sept. 18, 1965, when he resigned, and died in an explosion six years later at age 35.”

Above is a well-known picture of Geneva White posing for Ruby.

About 5 years after Roscoe White’s death, his widow, now named Geneva Dees, supplied the HSCA with an 8 x 10 print of a Backyard Photo that was just slightly different from CE 133-A.  John wrote, “According to Mrs. Dees the photo had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White (deceased) while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. The HSCA designated this photograph as 133-C (Dees). Mrs. Dees told the HSCA that following the assassination her husband was "sent to the Oswald home in his capacity as a plainclothes detective for the photography division." She said that her husband was skilled in trick photography and had once made composite photographs of their boys which showed they were flying around a room. Significantly, the pose in the photo found among Roscoe White's possessions was similar to the pose in one of the "cut-outs" found in DPD files, and was the same pose used by the Dallas Police in re-enacting the backyard photos for the Warren Commission (Jesse Curry's book, JFK: Assassination File, p. 87)”

[John Butler]

Jim,

I don't think I adequately explained how I analyzed your two rifle photos.  You made it really easy to do by providing the two photos and placing them into a relationship where there is little difference in size and orientation.  And, even if there are differences the differences don't matter if the two rifles are identical.  You could have shown the BYP rifle twice the size of the WC rifle for clarity and it would not have mattered.  You could have orientated the BYP rifle into a vertical position and it would not have mattered if the two rifles were identical.

That was the major assumption (null hypothesis) in the analysis.  The two rifles are identical.  I drew an arbitrary line through the center of the rifle so the top part of the rifle and the bottom part of the rifle can be compared in the two photos.  Although arbitrary, the red center line is very effective since the line can be drawn from the same points on the two rifles, the top of the butt stock at the end and the top of the barrel at the front.

Based on 35 years of doing art work I have a fair eye for the difference / sameness of details in objects.  What I noticed is expressed in the red lines and pointed to by the arrows. 

 You said, "After more study, I’m beginning to see what you mean about the scope tilt.  If I’d been able to better align the two images, it would probably be more obvious. QUESTION: Shouldn’t the tilt be the same in such similar rifles, and, if it isn’t, wouldn’t at least one of the scopes have to be improperly aimed?".  I can't really answer that question with full confidence since I am not an expert of rifle scopes and rifle mounts. 

I believe most rifle scope mounts mount the scope parallel to the rifle.  If one is tilted then there could be some malfunction, mounting misalignment, or the scope mount is simply made that way.  This is why I suggest the scopes seen in the BYP and WC photos could be different.  Based on what I see, I believe they are different mounts.

As far as shooting the WC rifle with the scope in that tilted position, I think it would be possible to hit the target if the scope was properly sighted for windage and elevation.  That goes for all scopes.  And, for all rifles that are shooting at a distance.  Scoped or un-scoped there needs to be a sighting (zeroing in) of the rifle before accurate shooting can occur. 

Roscoe White is my favorite for the authorship of the BYPs.  I believe Oswald knew White in the marines.  There is little evidence to say so, but that is my belief.  Roscoe White in the marines is in Oswald's 201 file.  Why would they do that if there wasn't some connection.

I trust your judgement.  Feel free to use what I post in any way you think best.  

PS

"As for the “spidery fingers,” not sure if that is an issue or just an optical oddity, but we do think the fingers belong to Roscoe White, along with the body and wide chin.  Roscoe White is shown at left in the photos below."

If you examine the anatomy of the fingers they appear to be faked.  I too think the fingers belong to White.  That's why I probably said that.  A good question might be "Where did Roscoe learn his camera tricks?"

Edited July 5, 2019 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

On 6/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I found the Encyclopedia Britannica image you mentioned. Here it is:

While the gray scale is excellent, allowing us to make out the scope, the scan resolution is of lower quality than the image you posted.

Nevertheless it does allow us to confirm that the rear end of the scope is shorter than the scope as seen in the DPD photos.

However, when I look at the butt plate in the Encyclopedia Britannica photo, I'm left with the impression that it isn't very curved, but looks curved because of a shadow the butt casts on Oswald's trousers. Your photo is more clear and so I want to conclude that it indeed shows a curved butt plate. But the Encyclopedia Britannica image makes me hesitate in accepting that as fact.

Still, I think there is no question that the rear of the scope is too short. I'm not convinced that the Encyclopedia Britannica image is the source for yours, and so I believe it corroborates yours.

Sandy,

Apologies, but I forgot to answer your post.  So if you happen to see this....

The Britannica image you printed has, as you say, a lower resolution than the one I used.  However, I was acutely aware that the source I used for the photo might well be an issue, and so I was careful at the time to note that, according to Google Images, the source was Britannica.

I also recall that, when clicking on the “go to the website” link, instead of landing on a Britannica page, I got some more pictures and descriptions from Google Images.  My guess, at the time, was that Britannica probably has massive amounts of data behind a paywall, and that the Google spider somehow got through it to pull out that higher-resolution version of the picture.   That is just a guess, however.

One thing is certain, though.  This image, in varying sizes and resolutions, is all over the net.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/5/2019 at 3:08 PM, John Butler said:

Roscoe White is my favorite for the authorship of the BYPs.  I believe Oswald knew White in the marines.  There is little evidence to say so, but that is my belief.  Roscoe White in the marines is in Oswald's 201 file.  Why would they do that if there wasn't some connection.

I trust your judgement.  Feel free to use what I post in any way you think best.  

PS

If you examine the anatomy of the fingers they appear to be faked.  I too think the fingers belong to White.  That's why I probably said that.  A good question might be "Where did Roscoe learn his camera tricks?"

According to John A., Roscoe A. White checked into the Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro, California on July 26, 1957, where American-born LEE Oswald was also stationed. LEE remained there until he left for Japan in late August.  At the same time, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald was attending Aviation Electronics school in Memphis, Tennessee.

We're in complete agreement on our suspicions of White.  The circumstantial evidence against him for the backyard photo framing of LHO is complete and overwhelming.  

[John Butler]

When I said there is little evidence to connect Oswald to White in the marines, I did not know this.  David Josephs did a fine forum presentation on the idea in 2013:

 

WCD443 Says Roscoe White was Oswald's Friend in Japan

By David Josephs, November 26, 2013 in JFK Assassination Debate

 

 There are a couple of photos that illustrate this notion:

 

 

and,

I can now say with some confidence that Oswald (at least one of probably both) knew Roscoe White in the marines and later in Dallas.

 

 

I don't see Sandy Larsen's shadow.  The lower part of the stock is fairly uniform from the trigger assembly to the bottom of the butt stock.  The bottom of the stock in this area is rough and not perfect due to cut and paste irregularities.  What I do see is what Jack White called sanding indications to make a cut and paste item fit into a photo better.  These are the white areas below the top red line and the area above the bottom red line. 

The angle of the stock moving downward from the top of the butt plate is greater than the WC rifle.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

As the following two USMC embarkation slips show, both LEE Harvey Oswald and Roscoe A. White embarked aboard the USS Bexar at San Diego bound for Yokosuka, Japan on Sept. 12, 1957.  (See the last line on each document.)

Not only that, but the White embarkation doc shows that he (Roscoe White) left for Okinawa in September and Subic Bay in the Philippines in November.  He and LEE Oswald were both stationed at El Toro, both travelled aboard the USS Bexar, and both were stationed in Subic Bay (in late 1957 and early 1958).  Both were still there on January 5, 1958, when the Martin Schrand incident (accidental gun shot) occurred.  

These guys had ample opportunity to know one another.

 

[John Butler]

Jim,

We shouldn't forget Hemming, "Gerald Patrick "Gerry" Hemming, Jr. (March 1, 1937 – January 28, 2008) was a former U.S. Marine, mercenary and Central Intelligence Agency operative", as part of a trio working in the same areas as Oswald and White.  To me, this says the others who knew Hemming were connected to intelligence matters.

I'm not to sure that White knew Hemming but Oswald knew both.  Oswald might be the central connection of a much wider Oswald Project.  And, then we have Kerry Thornley who also traveled with Oswald to Japan or was it coming back?  He definitely was in New Orleans later and in contact with Oswald where he was rumored to be having an affair with Marina. 

I don't know how reliable that rumor was based on Judith Baker's story.  Admiring or lusting after a black man on the street, according to Ruth Paine, and this affair might be the reason Oswald was said to beat Marina, or was it jealousy of Lee, or vice versa, jealously of Harvey that resulted in Marina's beating.  And, which one was allegedly doing the beating is the question?  Remember the Minsk photo of Marina hugging, with a pleasant expression, a non-Harvey Oswald character probably Lee.  Pardon my wandering off into speculation.  The part about the photo is not speculation.

Oswald's embarkation orders show him going to Japan and then later returning.  Shouldn't there be some sort of movement orders to get to the Subic Bay area where Hemming claims Oswald was out hunting Huks and received some kind of wound.  Was this a Lee wound that Harvey had to duplicate by shooting himself in the barracks?  Just speculation here but an interesting thought.

Edited July 8, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

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.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

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?

[John Butler]

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 Butler]

Oswald Timeline and Oswald and Subic Bay by boat:

 

October 27, 1957: LHO accidentally shoots himself in the arm with a derringer.

 

November 15, 1957: LHO is discharged from the hospital at Yokosuka, (He spends 19 days in the hospital).  Isn’t that an excessive length of time for a minor wound? 

 

November 20, 1957: LHO’s unit sails for the Philippine Islands.

 

March 7, 1958: LHO's unit sails for Atsugi.

 

March 18, 1958: The unit reaches Atsugi.

 

Roscoe White and Subic Bay:

 

 

25 Nov. 57 by boat to Subic Bay- arrives 29 Nov. 57.

15 Mar. 58 by boat to Atsugi- arrives 17 Mar. 58.

 

Jim,

 

I notice in the movement orders of White and Oswald there is no paper for Oswald traveling to and from Japan and the Phillipines / Atsugi to Subic Bay.

 

The timeline says his unit traveled by boat (sailed).  It says his unit rather than him.  Why is there no paper like White for this?  Did he go with them or was he sent later by plane?

 

This photo found in the military photo sections of his 201 file might suggest traveling by air.

 

 

This appears to be an aerial view taken by Oswald since it is in his 201 file.  It might be Oswald got to fly around the Subic Bay area.  If so then why?

 

It is a bit strange so I thought I would get your view on it. 

[Chris Bristow]

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.

[Chris Bristow]

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.