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 Organ]

The matching point that is most off in the graphic above is the "highlight" on the butt stock. Thanks to John, we now know it was a misplaced retouch mark on the LIFE magazine cover.

[Jerry Organ]

I don't know if those who get CNN International get to witness the spectacle, but Cuomo and Lemon wheel out the fake news by the wheelbarrow load every week-night on CNN (and worst yet on Fox News). I wonder how much fake news there is on news websites (NewsBlaze calls itself an online newspaper)? Here's one of their articles from 2009.

The Backyard Photos of Lee Harvey Oswald Are Fakes!
     By John Kays ( Link )

The writer concludes:

    "P.S. I have not been able to locate any convincing rebuttal to
     to Jack White’s perfect presentation on the internet. It’s that
     solid, that air-tight; the absolute TRUTH about the BACKYARD
     PHOTOS is revealed!"

I guess that right there tells you the extent of his research.

    "In 133 A, the famous Life Magazine photo, no one has ever 
     been able to duplicate the hand gripping of the rifle, as Lee did. 
     Also, the right shoulder slumps, as you can clearly see. These 
     are signs of sloppy touch up work. Most troublesome, is the fact 
     that there are no fingernails on the right hand, the hand holding 
     the leftist newspaper The Militant. Puzzling also, is the fact that 
     shadows fall in different positions, even though the snapshots 
     were taken very close together in time."

Hand-gripping: JFK WC critics can't figure out how to grip a rifle?


Right-shoulder slumps: Seems to do that in other photos.

No fingernails: tips of fingers oblique to camera?

Shadows move: Yes. The sun is always moving across the sky.

Some more:

   "The neck (in 133 A and B) is very much thicker than Oswald’s real neck.
     He was known to have a 14 1/2 inch collar; however, the person in this
     image has a 16 inch collar, a 1 1/2 inch difference. This is clearly not
     Lee’s body! Jack White is certain that the background used was the same
     building block to create the various composites. Clever cropping and tilting
     of the easel were used to project the illusion of different shots. Please look
     for these details when you watch the video. He proves that the same
     background was used."

Mugshot flipped to be similar to head rotation in 133A

Neck too thick: Compared above.



Same background: Actually the backgrounds are slightly different in shadow fall and parallax.

[Jerry Freeman]

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

[Jerry Organ]

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.

[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.