NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos”...

[Steve Howsley]

I'm impressed that the "NEW! Drop-dead visual proof" was dismantled so quickly. Really high quality work John. 

[Jerry Freeman]

And so what makes all this stuff "new"? Tweak here and twitch there 

[John Mytton]

Does this photo look like the foreground figures are pasted onto them?

I think the photo is authentic. If so, it shows "irregularities" can appear naturally. Both look like they're on a tilt. Arguably the hands are unnatural; the finger's on Trump's left hand are not attached and two on his right hand project. Pence's right forearm is way too small.

At first glance it looks like they are stuck on but having a closer look, the uncannily precise positioning of the background crowd makes the edges around Trump's jacket and the top of Pence's head ad jacket really stand out. I'm also guessing some sharpening/edge enhancer tool was used.

JohnM

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Over on the Education Forum Jim Hargrove posted an interesting comparison image of Oswald's rifle with a different scope which I thought was a little off, so I started investigating.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25864-new-drop-dead-visual-proof-that-the-rifle-and-scope-in-the-%E2%80%9Cbackyard-photos%E2%80%9D-ce-133-a-b-c-is-different-from-%E2%80%9Coswald%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D-so-called-rifle-and-scope-ce-139/

Step 1) Since they should be the same object viewed from different angles we can combine the images and see if they line up in 3D space and indeed from the bolt to the barrel end of the rifle, shows perfect rotates but the eyepiece end of the scope was missing and the shape of the rifle butt doesn't appear to match.



Step 2) Track down the source. Jim took the rifle in the Backyard photo from the cover of LIFE magazine and this is when I got suspicious, so a comparison of LIFE's cover and a decent copy of the backyard photo show that in the region of the end of the scope and the curve of the rifle shows no detail, so it's obvious LIFE just guessed and added the end of the scope and a weird specular highlight on the butt that isn't at all seen in the original and indicates a totally different shape. Also to highlight Oswald and his rifle, LIFE partially whited out the fence and bush and if you look closely on Oswald's pants we can see what seems to be the shadow of the scope and from the angle of the other shadows we see that their scope has to be too short.



CASE CLOSED!

JohnM

Thanks, John for the illustrations proving that it would not be a problem tampering or creating a photo to your liking.   Now get back to the Drawing board and stick to the Drawing board since you have no place in this area of forensics.

[Matthew Finch]

A lot of modern-day camera's have 'object focus' capabilities which can cause this effect. It can look 'too' clean cut but still not be a modified photo.

[John Mytton]

Thanks, John for the illustrations proving that it would not be a problem tampering or creating a photo to your liking.   

Do you understand what's being discussed?, the Life Magazine cover appears fake due to their tampering. The original photo has been examined at the granular level and no alteration was detected, in fact a negative of one of the backyard photos exists which proves that the photo was authentic.

Now get back to the Drawing board and stick to the Drawing board since you have no place in this area of forensics.

Hahahaha!

This is a Public Forum and I will present whatever evidence I like and if you see a problem with my evidence then I will be happy to consider your ideas.

JohnM

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Do you understand what's being discussed?, the Life Magazine cover appears fake due to their tampering. The original photo has been examined at the granular level and no alteration was detected, in fact a negative of one of the backyard photos exists which proves that the photo was authentic.



Hahahaha!

This is a Public Forum and I will present whatever evidence I like and if you see a problem with my evidence then I will be happy to consider your ideas.

JohnM

  Are you saying you had doubt before.?

"I will present whatever evidence I like"

I get it, only what evidence you "like".  Why would I think any different from someone who has not authenticated anything? 

"At the granular level"

Right, 1st time ever  hahaha good one

[John Mytton]

"At the granular level"

Right, 1st time ever

 

Q. Are there any differences in the grain pattern in the areas of the body. head, and background on the negative of Oswald?
A. No inconsistencies could be detected between the areas mentioned with examination of the original negative through a 30X magnifier, on normal contrast enlarged prints, or on high contrast enlarged transparencies (figs. RIT 9--1 A and B).
https://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-oswald-HSCA-report.html



JohnM