I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.
The light source in the photo had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand as shown in my graphic
the shadows from the MC & boxes. I agree that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the stock, but perhaps not the same light source as the rest of the photo.
The shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. Note in my graphic the orientation of the MC on the floor leaning against box A. There was a large gap under the stock where the buttend touched the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. From the camera's POV, it would be unlikely not to see the gap, however, in the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore, we must assume that the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, when the stock is brightened to resolve the gap I got artifacts due to the crappy quality of the digital image. But even if it is a shadow, it should project the contoured outline of the gap onto the floor, not a straight line that appears to be in front of the stock. There isn't a similar shadow on the floor from box B behind the rifle. So what kind of optical illusion is this?
Like I said previously the only one who can move the discussion forward is Walt (or anyone else with a matching MC). If Walt actually has the exact same model MC as depicted in the photo, then he can prove it's a fake with a reenactment of this photo. He can also confirm where the flash was held by replicating the shadows and either confirming or refuting whether this was an authentic photo or a fake darkroom creation. Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?
Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD, and that the Alyea film was heavily censored and Fritz choreographed the documenting of the crime scene, and that the MC photo was faked, how the hell do you have the gall to still cling to your original assessment of Craig? How can you possible assume that he did not read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel if you can't trust ANY of the film or testimony in this case? I think you owe Craig's family an apology and the only way to redeem yourself is to create a reenactment of this photo with your MC and prove that it was faked and Craig was telling the truth.
You've got nothing better to do, right? Godspeed Walt!
