Caro Massimo, mi permetto di risponderti anch'io.
Vedo che sei caduto in pieno nella trappola dell'"esperto fotografico" Jack White, come prevedevo rispondendoti prima che tu avessi sollevato la questione. Avrei molta voglia di risponderti sbrigativamente che sì, quello non è il fucile che sparò a Kennedy, Oswald non sparò mai a Kennedy, "loro" (ai quali si sono uniti ovviamente quei buffoni corrotti della Commissione Warren) confusero le acque con due fucili e così via. Ma verrei accusato da te di non rispondere a quella che io considero la sciocca provocazione di un poveraccio, uno sprovveduto (uso un eufemismo) che si arrampica pietosamente sugli specchi per trovare qualcosa di falso in quelle foto, non essendo riuscito a dimostrare che sono false le foto stesse. E allora rispondo. Purtroppo Ferrero, io e gli altri moderatori siamo costretti a rispondere ad ognuna di queste idiozie. E va bene. Cominciamo:
1) Dagli ingrandimenti delle foto non si nota assolutamente il punto di attacco della cinghia dalla parte della canna. Il modo in cui Oswald impugna il fucile da quella parte fa aderire un pezzo di cinghia alla lunghezza della canna, per cui il punto di attacco risulta indistinguibile. Pur essendo un attacco laterale (come si nota nella foto del tenente Day che porta fuori il fucile dal deposito tenendolo dalla parte alta della cinghia, vedi foto p. 161 del mio libro), in una foto (vedi sempre mio libro p. 161) il tenente Day alza l'arma in alto per farla fotografare dai giornalisti: anche in questo caso non si riesce a distinguere il punto di attacco della cinghia. E l'arma è nella stessa posizione (lato destro verso l'esterno, canna rivolta verso la sinistra della persona che la regge)in cui la tiene Oswald nelle foto.
2) Esisteva ed esiste al mondo un solo Mannlicher Carcano 91-38 calibro 6,5 matricola C2766 ("This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that serial number", Warren Report, p. 81), come testimoniato da Frazier (Hearings, 3 Vol. pp. 393-394 e Commission Exhibit 541)e come testimoniato dalla ditta di Chicago che spedì l'arma alla casella postale di Oswald. L'ordinazione fu scritta di suo pugno. Secondo alcune testimonianze, Oswald teneva in casa un fucile dotato di mirino telescopico (vedi ad es. Jeanne De Mohreschildt,WC Hearings, Vol. IX, pp. 315-316).
3)L'HSCA riesaminò la faccenda della corrispondenza fra l'arma fotografata in mano ad Oswald e quella ritrovata nel deposito e concluse che "the rifle was the same, to the exclusion of all others" (HSCA,Vol. VI, p. 66).
4)Il penoso tentativo dell'autore di "dimostrare" che l'incisione del numero di matricola sul fucile è diversa non meriterebbe neanche di essere confutata. La grana diversa delle due immagini e la diversa angolazione della luce che investe l'incisione danno l'impressione di un aspetto diverso della C e del numero 2766.
5) Ti accludo di seguito una lunga ma necessaria documentazione, che spero leggerai. Jack White, "esperto di fotografia", non sa nemmeno cos'è la fotogrammetria. Un'ultima cosa, Massimo. Ti ritengo una persona non sprovveduta. Come mai cadi in questi trabocchetti di così poco conto e di così bassa lega? Non ti rendi conto dello sciocchezzaio che circola? Ma credi davvero che la Storia aspetti un Jack White per scoprire la Verità dopo che decine fra i migliori specialisti hanno speso mesi e fatica per analizzare quelle foto? Tutti imbecilli, tutti corrotti, tutti intimiditi? E perché, secondo te, non dovrei attribuire questi difetti a uno come White? Ma so già che è inutile. Presto verrai fuori con un'altro dettaglio del genere chiedendo "E allora come mai questo...e quest'altro?". Tutto è stato già provato, è stato già scritto. Non resta che informarsi, leggere e studiare le fonti. Cordiali saluti. DV
************************
The conspiracy books and videos can produce all kinds of "experts" to claim that the photos of Oswald standing in his backyard with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were faked. The same "experts" will say that the photos and x-rays made at Kennedy's autopsy were forged, and that virtually each and every photo and film of the assassination contains indisputable proof that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. Groden: Turning a Shotgun into a Rifle In both his video, The Assassination Films, and in his book The Killing of a President, Robert Groden shows a segment from an amateur film by Charles Mentesana that pictures a policeman holding a gun. He says that the gun is a "second rifle" brought down from the Texas School Book Depository, and says that the gun is "not a Carcano, and has never been placed into evidence." Sounds spooky, right? Two rifles in the Depository. When Groden first showed his video at the 1995 COPA convention, Tony Marsh wrote him to correct this mistake: Several of us in the audience were very troubled by your narration of some films. You are the leading photographic interpreter in the research community and many people will take your word as gospel. So, it is especially important that your video not perpetuate any myths. For example, in the Mentesana footage you state that the policeman is holding a second rifle, found in the TSBD. That is not a rifle; it is a shotgun. The barrel and the bore are too big in diameter for a rifle. Some shotguns have distinctive profiles and magazine caps by which we can identify them at a glance. The shotgun the policeman was holding was his Remington 870. I have enclosed some examples of that model for you to compare to the Mentesana footage. I have reduced a diagram of the Remington 870 to about the same size as an overlay transparency of the Mentesana frame from your book so that you can see for yourself that they have the same profile at the same size. Also, one of the cops in the tramp photos carried a Remington 870. There were at least three different makes and models of shotguns used by the DPD and the Remington 870 is one of the most popular police shotguns.Interestingly, still photos and films of Dallas cops holding shotguns that are apparently identical to the one in the Mentesana film are plentiful. But Groden neither prints any of them in his book, nor includes any in his video. Needless to say, Groden has not corrected his mistake.
There Photo "expert" Jack White is convinced that the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle are faked. Part of his "evidence" for this is supposed discrepancies in the dimensions of various parts of the rifle in different photos. How does one measure the dimensions of objects in photos? Is it as simple as holding a ruler up against the photo? Read on.
Photo "expert" Jack White is convinced that the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle are faked. Part of his "evidence" for this is supposed discrepancies in the dimensions of various parts of the rifle in different photos. How dThe House Select Committee on Assassinations had its Photographic Evidence Panel analyze a variety of controversal and disputed pieces of evidence. See how they dealt with the backyard photos, and the autopsy photos and x-rays.
oes one measure the dimensions of objects in photos? Is it as simple as holding a ruler up against the photo? Read on.
*************************************************
The following is from Volume VI of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON ASSASSINATIONS:
-------------------------------------------------------------
B. Photograph Authentication
1. THE OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS*
Introduction**
(347) One of the most publicized questions to emerge in
relation to the Kennedy assassination involves the authenticity
of photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his
backyard, with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, holding
a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and two newspapers. These have become
known as the backyard photographs.
(348) Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at Dallas
Police headquarters after his arrest, insisted they were fakes.
Through the years, many critics have argued the same thing. In
part the controversy was stimulated by a 1964 Life magazine cover
of a copy of one picture, retouched to enhance its quality.
(349) If the backyard photographs are valid, they are
highly incriminating of Oswald because they apparently link him
with the murder weapon. If they are fakes, how they were
produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy.
"Faked" backyard photographs would indicate a degree of
conspiratorial sophistication that would almost necessarily raise
the possibility that a highly organized group had conspired to
kill the President and make Oswald a "patsy."
(1) History of the Backyard Photographs
(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas
detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in
Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The
search concentrated primarily in the garage in which possessions
of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police
officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers
and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald
holding a rifle. (126) (Only one negative was made available to
the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.)
(127)
(351) On the evening of November 23, 1963, Lee Harvey
Oswald was shown an enlargement of one of the pictures. (That.
photograph was later designated by the Warren Commission as CE
133-A.) According to officers present, Oswald denied that he had
ever seen the photograph and claimed that someone has
superimposed his head on another person's body. Oswald was then
shown CE 133-B, which he also claimed was a trick
photograph.(128)
(352) Marina Oswald was later questioned by the FBI about
photographs. She said that she had taken them in the backyard
of the Oswald residence on Neeley Street in Dallas. (129) She
gave, however, different versions of when the pictures were
taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or early
March 1963. (130) Her testimony to the Warren Commission
reflected the same thing. (131) In an FBI interview made after
her initial appearance before the Warren, however, she said that
the first time she saw the rifle was toward the end of March; she
recalled having taken the photographs 7 to 10 days thereafter,
in late March or early April.(132)
(353) Other evidence available to The Warren Commission
supports her later version. A rifle and a revolver were shipped
to Oswald from two different mail order houses on March 20. (133)
The left-wing newspapers Oswald is holding is dated March 11 and
March 24 and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively,
both by second-class mail. According to postal authorities, both
newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28. (134) In
addition, Marina claimed she remembered taking the photographs on
a Sunday, about 2 weeks before Oswald allegedly shot at Gen.
Edwin Walker on April 10. (135) From this information, the
Commission deduced the likely date on which the photographs were
taken to be Sunday, March 31, 1963. (136)
(354) In connection with the Warren Commission's
investigation. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, an FBI photographic expert,
performed an analysis on the two backyard prints designated CE
133-A and B, a negative, designated CE 749 (the original negative
of CE 133B), the Imperial Reflex duo lens camera (designated CE
750) that Marina Oswald testified she had used to take the
pictures, (137) and the alleged assassination weapon (designated
CE 139). His analysis and conclusion as follows:
OSWALD BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS-QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
(447) 1. Was the negative of Oswald exposed in the Oswald
camera? (The negative is identified by the Archives number
CE-749, and it corresponds with the print identified by the
number CE-133B. The Oswald camera is an Imperial Reflex duo lens
camera that uses 620 film.)
(448) When negatives that were exposed in the Oswald camera
by the undersigned were compared with the negative of Oswald,
similarities in the edge markings from irregularities in the film
aperture and scratch patterns indicated that the negative of
Oswald was exposed in the Oswald camera. In addition, variations
in sharpness from the center to the edges, and pincushion
distortion were similar on the original and comparison negatives.
(449) 2. Do the edge markings on the FBI print (made from a
negative exposed in the Oswald camera by the FBI) agree with the
edge markings on the negative of Oswald (CE-749)?
(450) We had intended to make a quantitative comparison of
the edge markings on the various photographs, as suggested by a
panel member, by aligning parts of edge markings, measuring the
displacement at fixed intervals and calculating the standard
deviation. Careful examination of a roll of film we exposed in
the Oswald camera revealed that while the distinctive marks
appeared consistently on each frame of film, the straightness of
the lines varied considerably-apparently due to slight buckling
of the film. Instead, we made prints that compare pairs of edges
on all four sides of the picture frame.
(451) By combining positive and negative images, it was
possible to show the comparison as the two edges of a single
black line. Figure RIT 2.1 shows a comparison between a print
made by the FBI from Archives negative CE-749 (outside edge) and
a print made from the same negative at RIT (inside edge). In
order to show all four edges it is necessary to make the inner
image slightly smaller than the outer image, resulting in a
slight displacement of markings near the ends of each edge. The
distinctive markings on the inner and outer edges of the black
line agree closely as would be expected if the two prints were
both made from the same negative.
(452) There are two obvious discrepancies that we consider
to be insignificant. (1) When one edge of the two images is
aligned, there is a slight lack of parallelism on the other three
edges. Since the two prints were made with two different
enlargers, any deviation from exact parallelism of the negative
and the easel on either enlarger, a not uncommon defect in
enlargers, would produce this effect. (2) There is an obvious
difference in the vertical to horizontal proportions of the two
images. The dimensional stability of photographic paper during
processing and drying is different in the direction of the paper
grain as opposed to across the paper grain. The difference in
proportions is consistent with expectations if the paper grain
were oriented vertically on one print and horizontally on the
other.
(480) Careful examination of the photographs with respect to lighting, perspective, sharpness, distortion, grain pattern.density, and contrast revealed no evidence of fakery. Examples of evidence of fakery concerning the lighting would be shadows in
the wrong position in relation to the position of the Sun and the
object casting the shadow, shadows that do not correspond in
shape to that expected when shadows are projected onto another
surface, shadows that do not appear as sharp as expected with
direct sunlight, shadows that do not appear dark as expected with
the approximately 1:8 lighting ratio between shadow and highlight
sides of objects obtained in sunlight on a clear day, and shadows
that do not respond to nearby reflecting surfaces. No such
discrepancies are seen in any of the three photographs of Oswald.
The darkness, shape, sharpness, and placement of the shadows
appear to be correct.
(481) The effect of light being reflected from the white
surfaces on the left can be seen in the shadow on that side of
Oswald's neck, and the shadow of Oswald on the ground moves
appropriately as the changes his position between each of the
photographs. Tilting the camera slightly downward for view
CE-133A where Oswald is holding the paper under his chin produces
the expected higher placement the figure in the picture and the
divergence of the vertical subject lines towards the top of the
picture.
(482) Composite photographs made using a pasteup or montage
technique can usually be defected as such unless the component
parts are made under identical conditions and with great skill.
Clues that commonly reveal fakery are mismatches of the density,
contrast, sharpness, graininess, perspective, and lighting, and
imperfect blending of the edges between the parts. No such clues
can be found in these photographs. Furthermore, there is no
disruption of the grain pattern across the boundary between the
head and the body or between the head and the background so that
any composite photograph involving the head would require using
large original negatives and prints and then copying a composite
image with the Oswald camera. This possibility is discussed in
the response to question 22, but nothing in the negative or the
three prints of Oswald was detected that appears inconsistent or
Suggests fakery.
(483) Additional questions related to statements by Mr.
Malcolm Thompson in a BBC film and a manuscript identified as
"Panorama -- Kennedy, Project. number 5348/5506" that is included
in the appendix:
(484) 14. Does the apparent bulge in the left edge of the
post to the right of Oswald's head appear to be due to retouching
or other alteration of the image in photograph number CE 133B?
(485) What could be perceived as an indentation in the post
in CE-133B is believed by the undersigned to be an illusion
resulting from the location of a shadow of a branch or leaf along
the left edge of the post. It follows that since the darker area
to the left of the post is a shadow of the post on a white
surface, a shadow falling on the white post would be similar in
tone and could be seen as part of the background rather that as a
shadow on the post. The shadows falling along the right edge of
the post create, a slight illusion that the right edge is not
entirely straight either even though the background to the right
of the post is lighter in tone.
(486) Careful examination of this area on enlarged prints
reveals a narrow object, that could be either wire or a bush
branch, running from the edge of the building on the right, in
front of the post, across the area in question, and continuing
through the shadow area between the neck and the post (fig. RIT
14-1). Anyone skillful enough to retouch the area between the
neck and the post, as claimed by Mr. Thompson, and include the
just-detectable wire or branch, would have no difficulty in
producing a straight line on the post.
(487) 5. Are the backgrounds and shadows identical on any
of the three different views (CE 133A, CE 133B, and CE -133C),
thereby suggesting that different figures have been superimposed
on different prints of a single background photograph?
(488) The speculation is either that someone started with a
photograph of a backyard with no figure and added the three
figures from other photographs, or that Oswald's head was added
to three photographs, of someone else standing in the backyard.
The backgrounds are not identical, thereby ruling out the
possibility that figures were added to three prints of a single
photograph of the backyard. The differences include changes in
the convergence of vertical subject lines (the posts, the boards
in the fence, and the building on the right) with changes of
camera tilt, changes in the area of the background included in
the three views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows
of some branches and leaves.
(489) 16. Is there evidence that part of the background
could have been moved photographically to fill a gap created by
adding a figure in a different pose to a background photograph?
(490) No such evidence can be detected. Since the figure
moved to the viewer's left between views CE-133B and CE-133A, and
moved closer to the fence between views CE-133A and CE-133C,
major gaps would have been created around the entire periphery of
the figures if the figures had been added as suggested. Even if
it is assumed that photographs of Oswald's head have been added
to photographs of someone else's body, the necessary retouching
around the edges would be difficult to conceal from detection
with high magnification.
(491) 17. Is there evidence that the shadows have been
touched in? No. The shadows appear normal in shape, location,
sharpness and contrast. It would be especially difficult to
maintain realistic detail in the shadows on the ground if the
shadows were added. It is noted that the shadow moves an
appropriate distance to the left as Oswald moves to the viewer's
left from view CE-133B to view CE-133A, and when he moves closer
to the fence in view CE-133C the shadow moves up onto the fence
as expected. (The relative distances between Oswald and the fence
can be determined by noting the position of his feet with respect
to the shadows of the three overhead wires.)
(511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would
include strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a
supplementary lens, loss of graduation in highlight areas and
loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies
are made, and possible detection of imperfect retouching or other
alterations. Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the
copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on the original
negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald
camera without the supplementary lens. Since there is no
wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs are copied, to
avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape of
Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original
photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs
that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a
process poses many technical problems, any one of which if not
solved would lead to detection under close examination of the
photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to
produce the three, backyard photographs of Oswald.