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

[John Mytton]

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

[John Mytton]

I grabbed this image by Chris Bristow from the same EF thread and matched both rulers directly and this perfectly illustrates why you must take into account basic photogrammetry principles when comparing objects. The differences between the intervals are proportionally opposite to each other.



Ray Mitcham originally said that the following comparison was proof that the rifle straps were on opposite sides, then it was pointed out that the EXIT sign was reversed? DOH!
Anyway it's clear that the angles and rotation of the rifle in both photos are not a direct comparison and like the above ruler example, photogrammetry allowances must be applied. This isn't as easy as it seems.



JohnM

[Mark A. Oblazney]

I grabbed this image by Chris Bristow from the same EF thread and matched both rulers directly and this perfectly illustrates why you must take into account basic photogrammetry principles when comparing objects. The differences between the intervals are proportionally opposite to each other.



Ray Mitcham originally said that the following comparison was proof that the rifle straps were on opposite sides, then it was pointed out that the EXIT sign was reversed? DOH!
Anyway it's clear that the angles and rotation of the rifle in both photos are not a direct comparison and like the above ruler example, photogrammetry allowances must be applied. This isn't as easy as it seems.



JohnM

Nice work, Mr. Mytton......... QED.  Thanks.

[Ray Mitcham]

I grabbed this image by Chris Bristow from the same EF thread and matched both rulers directly and this perfectly illustrates why you must take into account basic photogrammetry principles when comparing objects. The differences between the intervals are proportionally opposite to each other.



Ray Mitcham originally said that the following comparison was proof that the rifle straps were on opposite sides, then it was pointed out that the EXIT sign was reversed? DOH!
Anyway it's clear that the angles and rotation of the rifle in both photos are not a direct comparison and like the above ruler example, photogrammetry allowances must be applied. This isn't as easy as it seems.



JohnM

Yes, guess what... I was was wrong  about the reversing the photo.

Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?

[John Mytton]

Nice work, Mr. Mytton......... QED.  Thanks.

Hi Mark, thanks but I really have to thank Chris Bristow for going to the trouble of actually photographing his 36 inch rulers at different angles and in doing so illustrating a simple photogrammetry principle that still eludes the average CT.

In the following image the reason that the same corresponding inches don't match is that when the ruler is angled each corresponding inch is a different distance from the camera, so due to perspective the inches that are angled closer to the camera and due to perspective each inch that's proportionately closer to the camera will be progressively closer together and therefore when each ruler is the compared we see that each inch can't be a 1 to 1 match
So in conclusion when two photographs of the same object is directly compared the difference in perspective must be calculated.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Yes, guess what... I was was wrong  about the reversing the photo.

Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?

Yes, guess what... I was was wrong  about the reversing the photo.

It takes a man to admit he was wrong, I won't mention it again! 

Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?

We can see the rifle itself in the darker photo was photographed with the butt angled closer to the camera and as expected some slight non corresponding lens distortion.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Re your rotation argument..."rotation" which way, John horizontally or vertically?

The camera at the bottom can only see the image(green line) from its own perspective.



JohnM

[Denis Pointing]

The camera at the bottom can only see the image(green line) from its own perspective.



JohnM

You're a clever ole bastard. Cheers mate.