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]

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Good point.  And, even if you could it would not be a significant difference.  I do no see any foreshortening that would decrease the length of any of the rifles that would significantly impact any analysis.  They are basically in a horizontal plane with little variance vertically or diagonally.

It is the magnification of the barrel end and how it decreases in a gradient as you move toward the rear. Barrel end to stock is a bit more magnified that from stock to bolt or bolt to butt etc. The simplest solution as to why that type of magnification happened is that the rifle or the camera was leaning (Actually the camera was pointed down a bit and would also cause some of that magnification). Any optical distortion of the camera or printing error would not be limited to the rifle.
When I put myself in Oswald's stance with the right leg back and the rifle against his thigh, I find the rifle leans barrel end towards the camera, even if I really suck my gut in.
 EDIT:  I deleted a paragraph about my speculation on the shadow because I realized it was no good.
 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

On 6/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

Jim, In this image I see the rear part of the scope is barley protruding at all. It is only about 1/3 as long as the rear portion in your comparison. Did you take the comp image from different copy of the Life Mag photo?
 

[John Butler]

Here is something that folks might find interesting.  This is a photo from Oswald's 201 file.

If you look at the building in the photo it appears to be a barracks of sorts.  Over the door is the word "Keflavik".  I did a google search for the Russian word Keflavik and came up with nothing much at all.  However the word "Keflavik" brought up these two pieces of info:

"The Keflavík Naval Air Station played an important role during the Cold War, allowing the US to monitor Soviet activities in the North Atlantic. The base played a key role in patrolling the GIUK gap, Greenland-Iceland-UK, through which all Soviet long range aircraft or submarines had to pass before entering the Atlantic."

and, "In its Cold War heyday, the tiny town of Keflavik (population 15,129 today) played an outsized role on the world stage as a strategic outpost for the United States and its NATO allies, keeping an eye on Soviet and Russian activities. The Icelandic airbase was home to thousands of US servicemembers and their families. As Moscow-Washington tensions abated, so did the interest in keeping the base staffed up. By 2006, and over the protestations of the Icelandic government which felt somewhat abandoned, the US government returned control of the base to Reykjavik."

Over the building is a flag.  It is an Icelandic flag.  Here is a photo to the Icelandic flag:

I know that folks say that there are photos in Oswald's 201 by others.  But, this could lead to such questions as "What in the world was Oswald doing in Iceland?"

If he ever was in Iceland then why?  I don't think I have ever heard or read anything like this. 

Does anyone know anything concerning this photo?

Here is another photo to go with that and clarifies somewhat.  That must be a terminal rather than barracks in the background.

Doesn't the couple in the center look like Lee and Marina, but probably just tourists.  If so, wouldn't that be something.

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

This crop of the life BYP makes the rifle scope even weirder and easier to see as a fraud.

The left hand photo is from Chris Barstow and the right hand photo is one that I have in my photos records and have used several times before including this thread.  My copy came off the internet.

I believe Jim said his came from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Chris,

This is what I saw on the shadow issue of Sandy Larsen:

Depending on the photo you can be right or wrong.

Edited July 12, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

This crop of the life BYP makes the rifle scope even weirder and easier to see as a fraud.

The left hand photo is from Chris Barstow and the right hand photo is one that I have in my photos records and have used several times before including this thread.  My copy came off the internet.

I believe Jim said his came from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Chris,

This is what I saw on the shadow issue of Sandy Larsen:

Depending on the photo you can be right or wrong.

Not sure what you are demonstrating. The faint shadow that extends out from the bottom rear of the stock looks to me like it also sits just below the stock and lines up with the Sandy's shadow under the stock. That same shadow lays behind the butt and creates an illusion that the butt has a curvature to it. But you can see the shadow is a bit lighter than the butt and if you look close or play with the contrast the demarcation between the shadow and butt is visible.
 The photo on the right has a long arrow, is that representing the Sun's direction? Your shorter arrow shows the direction of the shadow but the shadow is misleading because it is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3d shadow. The shadow falls toward the side of his leg so the shadow is running into the background.
 We all know objects that run into the background(objects that have depth) will appear higher in the frame of the photo because depth is translated into height in a 2d image. ( actually objects appear higher if they are below the vanishing point and lower if above the vanishing point. everything with depth will be bent towards the vanishing point) So anytime an object in a photo has depth it will be distorted.
I recall the Sun was 47 degrees but would only cast a 47 degree shadow under certain conditions. First the shadow has to fall on a plain perpendicular to the camera. Second that plain has to sit at a 90 angle to the Sun. Oswald was facing 22 degrees away from the Sun.
 

[David Josephs]

FWIW, Life Mag made alterations to the original image to bring out or reduce detail in diff areas of the image, especially around the scope....

Shaneyfelt Exh 14... strangely, they use an Oswald Stand-in for some of the shirt photos...

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Chris, DJ, John B....

Megathanks for your responses.  I’ve been out of state with only a cell phone for several days, and so please pardon my delay in responding to a number of your posts.  (I’m reluctant to announce on the internet that I’ll soon be traveling and leaving my house empty.)  But.... 

I just got home an hour or two ago and haven’t had much time to study the issues raised, but if I understand them properly, the one serious issue remaining unresolved in this thread is whether the image I posted of CE 133A has been altered (retouched).  So....

If anyone has a CLEAR image of the BYP rifle scope that differs substantially from the one I offer below, please post so we can discuss.  I’m planning to up on HarveyandLee.net tomorrow John Butler’s visual analysis of all of this,  and so if there are any additional concerns about the image I provided him to analyze, I’d like to consider them asap. 

According to Google Images, the photo I determined represented most clearly CE 133A was  from Encyclopedia Britannica and looked like this:  

I used the Linux version of Gnu Image Manipulator Program (GIMP)  to rotate and crop just the rifle from the picture above to provide the companion photo to CE 139 (an image of "Oswald's" Carcano in evidence at the National Archives).  Here is the comparison we've been debating:

 

[Chris Bristow]

Jim, they say the Life version was altered to bring out the rear of the scope but in the Life image the rear of the scope is just a nub. I don't get it. Your copy of 133a and others show more scope but are still too short. That may mean Life Mag is the original  fake that shows Rosco's botched work and your version is the attempt to fix the original error.
The rear end of the Life Mag scope is fairly sharp and it just disappears leaving a shade that matches Oswald's shirt where several inches of scope should be. The stark contrast between your version and Life Mag, I think, strengthens your case. When people claim yours must be the version Life altered, you can show the Life image is even shorter than yours.
 I find it hard to believe Life tried to bring out the scope and then made it this tiny nub. Most of that nub is already visible in the bad copies of 133. It seems the Life image proves the scope end was missing and yours proves someone tried to add it back in and made it too small. The distinct end of the Life image eliminates the possibility that the difference between your scope and the Life image is just due to being processed/developed differently, imo.

[Jim Hargrove]

Chris,

I own a very well-preserved copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine and I’m staring at the cover right now.  I’ve examined the rifle’s scope under bright light and with a magnifying glass and am inclined to agree with your description of it, but we need to remember that these prints are lithographic halftones (comprised of tiny dots) that may give away some details. Still, my bet is your description is correct.

On close examination, the dark shirt behind what you call the “nub” end of the scope has some texture, some slight folding, and even a feint highlight.  I can’t imagine faking all this in order to shorten the scope.  If anything (and this is a guess) it might show that the whole scope was added, in at least two different (and both incorrect) lengths.  I can’t imagine an innocent explanation.

Curiously, LIFE put the image on both the cover and on p. 80 of it’s 2/21/64 edition.  Extensive photo credits are listed on the Contents page, but nothing is listed for the cover or the BYP illustration on p. 80.  The only credit given for p. 80 is the smaller photo at the top of the page of Marina and June.  As for the provenance of the BYP, LIFE editors clearly aren’t talking.

In the p. 80 photo caption, however, the editors are happy to say that “Dallas police have confirmed that this is the rifle found in the Texas Book Depository.” Somebody didn’t look very closely... or didn’t want to. I'm very surprised that this took more than half a century to come to light.

[Chris Bristow]

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

I own a very well-preserved copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine and I’m staring at the cover right now.  I’ve examined the rifle’s scope under bright light and with a magnifying glass and am inclined to agree with your description of it, but we need to remember that these prints are lithographic halftones (comprised of tiny dots) that may give away some details. Still, my bet is your description is correct.

On close examination, the dark shirt behind what you call the “nub” end of the scope has some texture, some slight folding, and even a feint highlight.  I can’t imagine faking all this in order to shorten the scope.  If anything (and this is a guess) it might show that the whole scope was added, in at least two different (and both incorrect) lengths.  I can’t imagine an innocent explanation.

Curiously, LIFE put the image on both the cover and on p. 80 of it’s 2/21/64 edition.  Extensive photo credits are listed on the Contents page, but nothing is listed for the cover or the BYP illustration on p. 80.  The only credit given for p. 80 is the smaller photo at the top of the page of Marina and June.  As for the provenance of the BYP, LIFE editors clearly aren’t talking.

In the p. 80 photo caption, however, the editors are happy to say that “Dallas police have confirmed that this is the rifle found in the Texas Book Depository.” Somebody didn’t look very closely... or didn’t want to. I'm very surprised that this took more than half a century to come to light.

The easiest way to do 133 would be to place a photo of White holding the rifle onto the backyard and add Oswald's head. The only scenario I can think of that accounts for the missing scope  would be White forgot to put a scope on the Carcano then added it after and  accidentally cut off the end of the scope. That would be the Life version.
 What makes no sense to me is how the end of the nub could be so distinct and show none of the scope beyond that. The rest of the scope was as dark as the rear but it is clear, it isn't in the process of disappearing. The scope is the darkest object around Oswald's hips and I would think it would be the last object to disappear when the exposure is increased. To get rid of the darkest object(If it is not to small or thin) you have to crank the exposure way up and the shirt washes out before the scope does. The clamps on the scope are well defined from the darker scope and are similar in brightness to the shirt yet both elements are well defined from each other, so how did the rear disappear into the shirt?
Another strange thing is the scopes shadow is much lighter and more subtle than the scope end but it remains  and the scope is gone.
 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

Comparing BYP rifles:

This is John Armstrong’s photo of the Carcano rifle, CE 139:

This is the Lt. Day at TSBD rifle:

The scopes do not appear to be the same.

This is the Life BYP rifle of Jim Hargrove:

Once again the scope does not resemble the scope in the other photos.

This is the rifle from the BYP by the Detroit Free Press:

Weird, isn’t it.  It doesn’t have a scope and the stock is abnormal.

Can any of these be said to be the same scope?  I don’t think so. 

You can read all kinds of stories about this or that photo being altered by Life or the Detroit Free Press.   Reasonable doubt on what the WC and HSCA said.

[John Butler]

Chris,

Here's something for you to think about.  The Mannlicher is found at the TSBD on 22 Nov. 1963 as seen in the Lt. Day photo.  The Life Backyard Photo and the Detroit Free Press photo was I believe in the last part of February.  I don't know when WC CE 139 was taken.  Since it was taken by the FBI I would assume that was prior to February, 1964.  The photos were returned to the Dallas police by the FBI.

Let's say the Life BYP was changed because the scope did not match the photo of Lt. Day holding the TSBD rifle and scope.  Or, it could be someone had already seen the CE 139 and decided to try to match the scope there but fell short, no pun intended.

The Detroit FP version looks like a complete mess made by an amateur.  What do you think?

 

[John Butler]

Here is another comparison you might find interesting:

CE 139 has two round objects of indeterminate appearance.  They may be screws, bolts, or camera objects.  Whatever they maybe they are not found on the Lt. Day rifle version.

The Day rifle appears to be cocked.  That is probably so when he removed the last or 4th Carcano round from the rifle.  IMO, definitely not the same scope.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

I just found this searching through a newspaper database.  Click on the story to enlarge it.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I just found this searching through a newspaper database.  Click on the story to enlarge it.

That is fascinating and that crazy photo is comical.