Photo Manipulation?

[James Richards]

The image on the left below was discovered by Lee Forman. It was amongst a collection of UPI photographs but there is no information that suggests it actually went out over the wire.

There is something very weird going on with the rifle. The image on the right is the commonly published one with Day displaying the alleged assassin's weapon.

It would be interesting to get some opinions on this. Why the need for some funny business?

James

[John Dolva]

The image on the left below was discovered by Lee Forman. It was amongst a collection of UPI photographs but there is no information that suggests it actually went out over the wire.

There is something very weird going on with the rifle. The image on the right is the commonly published one with Day displaying the alleged assassin's weapon.

It would be interesting to get some opinions on this. Why the need for some funny business?

James

James, if one takes the left image and resizes and rotates so that the rifles match. And then places the left on the right and inverts its grayscales to negative and applies transsparency then one can see that the rifle when it is cancelled out is not in the same palce or size in both. Therefore the right hand one is not made by the apparent doctoring of the left, or: the left is not a template for the right. Why?? an attempt to make it look fishy perhaps? I don't know

EDIT:: when I view what I posted on the browser it's not so clear. The slivers of white at the lamp and doorways and other places are the indicators to see that the two 'non rifle' images don't match when the rifles do and vice versa.

Edited January 13, 2006 by John Dolva

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The image on the left below was discovered by Lee Forman. It was amongst a collection of UPI photographs but there is no information that suggests it actually went out over the wire.

There is something very weird going on with the rifle. The image on the right is the commonly published one with Day displaying the alleged assassin's weapon.

It would be interesting to get some opinions on this. Why the need for some funny business?

James

I'm likely the least knowledgeable person here when it comes to photos. However, it appears that in the left-side photograph, somebody has taped a piece of acetate over the original photo, with the rifle's image upon the acetate. That would explain why Day's fingers are still visible, but indistinct, beneath the acetate image of the weapon. It may have been part of a masking process, designed to drop another rifle into Day's hands, for purposes that might be open to speculation.

However, in the absence of someone seeking to substitute a false image of a different rifle into Day's hands, I cannot fathom a benign purpose for such an exercise.

Either way, one can understand why the left-side image has been suppressed. If is innocent, it was wholly unnecessary. If it was deemed necessary to do, it is unlikely to have been innocent.

[John Dolva]

Some good points, Robert. Perhaps an ongoing attempt at creating smoke? It's not over yet after all, and it hasn't been suppressed has it? It's here now.

Here is a similar thing whipped up to change the time.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm also unknowledgeable in this area, but it occurred to me that the photo on the left was someone's preliminary or aborted attempt to hide nicks, scratches, and other markings on the rifle so that it could not be distinguished from a later substituted rifle of the same make and model.

[Robert Howard]

I would like to know the specifics of where the photo on the left was found website, internet, etc. The context of when the original was taken, would seem to me to be the way to resolve whether there is something of significance to delve into. I mean, if there were indeed, all these people standing around in the background as I assume there actually were, then there would be nothing that could be manipulated right?

[David G. Healy]

James,

the image on the right, was this image used for publication, if so when? Appears a little contrasty to me.

the overlay appears/could be a matte [hole cutter] of the MC rifle!

Was the assassination rifle still referred to as a Sprinfield when this photo was taken?

David

[James Richards]

David,

The image on the right to the best of my knowledge was the one published regularly. If I remember correctly, I scanned my version from an old Look magazine.

BTW, I should have posted this complete version below after my initial post but was distracted by family business.

IMO, it poses more questions than answers.

James

Edited January 14, 2006 by James Richards

[John Dolva]

David,

The image on the right to the best of my knowledge was the one published regularly. If I remember correctly, I scanned my version from an old Look magazine.

BTW, I should have posted this complete version below after my initial post but was distracted by family business.

IMO, it poses more questions than answers them.

James

This could be an example of what I mean when I say 'the conspiracy IS the conspiracy'. An endless blurring of the issues till tails are chased in ever widening circles with an endless supply of (rightly so) suspicious researchers faced with new variations of Angletons orchids, one after the other.

Obviously, I'm not against this speculation at all. Once the counter arguments can no longer be credibly met, however, they are a dead end. (I guess that's one thing I like about Jack for example, he doesn't give up.)

_______________

This is a photo of a copy of a photo placed over a photo with typing below it. Tne photo over the photo with typing has been marked with the lengths of the rifle and a semitransparent image of the rifle placed over that. The markings on this appears to be on the tranasparent part or after the transparent part placed on. Then a photo of this has been taken.

Whether this is done before or after the advent of the currently simple ways of doing this on a computer or at the dates indicated by the images writing is another question. All I can say for now is that it's easy to do now, and that at the same time as downloading a copy my virus detectors (both) sprang into action and reported virus Win32/parite infection. Possibly in the html script there is an infection. James, if you haven't done so. check. It may be coincidental and because of an earlier infection on my computer that somehow was triggered by something unrelated, but just in case it needs to be mentioned. This virus is memory resident, but appears to be dealt with successfully by up to date always on virus programs.

[David G. Healy]

Your conspiracy IS the conspiracy is duly noted - having said that Of course it's easy to do NOW -- the question is: IF the intermediate image (overlay included) is a image from circa. 1963-64 -- somebody's got explaining to do, yes?

David,

The image on the right to the best of my knowledge was the one published regularly. If I remember correctly, I scanned my version from an old Look magazine.

BTW, I should have posted this complete version below after my initial post but was distracted by family business.

IMO, it poses more questions than answers them.

James

This could be an example of what I mean when I say 'the conspiracy IS the conspiracy'. An endless blurring of the issues till tails are chased in ever widening circles with an endless supply of (rightly so) suspicious researchers faced with new variations of Angletons orchids, one after the other.

Obviously, I'm not against this speculation at all. Once the counter arguments can no longer be credibly met, however, they are a dead end. (I guess that's one thing I like about Jack for example, he doesn't give up.)

_______________

This is a photo of a copy of a photo placed over a photo with typing below it. Tne photo over the photo with typing has been marked with the lengths of the rifle and a semitransparent image of the rifle placed over that. The markings on this appears to be on the tranasparent part or after the transparent part placed on. Then a photo of this has been taken.

Whether this is done before or after the advent of the currently simple ways of doing this on a computer or at the dates indicated by the images writing is another question. All I can say for now is that it's easy to do now, and that at the same time as downloading a copy my virus detectors (both) sprang into action and reported virus Win32/parite infection. Possibly in the html script there is an infection. James, if you haven't done so. check. It may be coincidental and because of an earlier infection on my computer that somehow was triggered by something unrelated, but just in case it needs to be mentioned. This virus is memory resident, but appears to be dealt with successfully by up to date always on virus programs.

[Robin Unger]

Nice job James:

This is one of Lee's versions of that image.

As Charles pointed out, i have marked on the image were i beleive a "mask" or "filter" was TAPED over the original image.

[John Dolva]

Your conspiracy IS the conspiracy is duly noted - having said that Of course it's easy to do NOW -- the question is: IF the intermediate image (overlay included) is a image from circa. 1963-64 -- somebody's got explaining to do, yes?

I agree, David. If it could be shown to be 'real' it could be seen as evidence of something.

__________________

I got rid of all traces of the virus after a couple of hours. Still no idea where it came from, the actvation at the moment of download is not conclusive but thought it best not to take risks.

__________________

The main thing about the photos is that the left one is not a template for the right one.

The idea of taking a photo of a photo of a photo for a transparency to tape on to create a collage to photograph and put together as a presentation that seems to indicate something fishy and for that presentation to be fundamentally flawed, and saving that for it to be discovered years later seems fishy. Any ideas why?

[Pat Speer]

The idea of taking a photo of a photo of a photo for a transparency to tape on to create a collage to photograph and put together as a presentation that seems to indicate something fishy and for that presentation to be fundamentally flawed, and saving that for it to be discovered years later seems fishy. Any ideas why?

To me it looks like someone photographed the photograph on the right (failing to match the exposure), darkened the rifle, painted in a few details on the scope, and then overlay the darkened rifle segment of the photo back onto the original.

Since this came from UPI, it seems likely the gun was changed for the same reason Life changed the gun in the backyard photos--so that it would show up clearer on the reproductions. That might explain why the fingers are so much darker where they overlay the gun. Evidently, this kind of "alteration" by news agencies was commonplace back in the sixties. Of the newspaper and magazine published versions of the backyard photos, all of them had been altered in some way, as acknowledged in the letters of the various news agencies to the Warren Commission. (I believe this is discussed in Shaneyfelt's testimony.)

Edited January 14, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

According to a friend who's done professional photo layout, a rubylith mask is taped onto the top of the photo. It allowed a graphic artist to isolate the gun and create an image of the gun by itself. She swears this was totally standard behavior for graphic artists in the sixties.

[Richard J. Smith]

The image on the left below was discovered by Lee Forman. It was amongst a collection of UPI photographs but there is no information that suggests it actually went out over the wire.

There is something very weird going on with the rifle. The image on the right is the commonly published one with Day displaying the alleged assassin's weapon.

It would be interesting to get some opinions on this. Why the need for some funny business?

James

I'm likely the least knowledgeable person here when it comes to photos. However, it appears that in the left-side photograph, somebody has taped a piece of acetate over the original photo, with the rifle's image upon the acetate. That would explain why Day's fingers are still visible, but indistinct, beneath the acetate image of the weapon. It may have been part of a masking process, designed to drop another rifle into Day's hands, for purposes that might be open to speculation.

However, in the absence of someone seeking to substitute a false image of a different rifle into Day's hands, I cannot fathom a benign purpose for such an exercise.

Either way, one can understand why the left-side image has been suppressed. If is innocent, it was wholly unnecessary. If it was deemed necessary to do, it is unlikely to have been innocent.

Before we jump to conspiratorial conclusions, has anyone considered that the "odd" photo was manipulated by whoever came up with it? What's the source of this photo, where did it come from, and where is it now?

RJS