So, they don't want to say which tree it was, and I can understand why. There is really nothing that works. There was nothing between Mark Bell and the doorway that could have produced this:
It was 1963, and those trees weren't that big. Look:
So, if it was the southern-most tree by the reflecting pool, it obviously wasn't the two small trees in front of it.
But,who in his right mind would tolerate that? Who takes a photo in which over half of your field is obscured? It's ridiculous.
In fact, I would say that this shows about 2/3 of the visual field totally obscured.
Who would do such a thing? How hard is it to move?
Look at those black-shaded figures in the middle. Have you ever taken a photo in which someone's entire form was shaded black? But wait. Shadows are cast by objects, and the shadow is cast over an area. But, the shape of the shadow is determined by the shape of the object that's casting the shadow. How could they be so dark? They don't seem to be standing in shadow, especially the guy on the left. He seems to be in the sun. So, why is he so dark?
Here's another shot:
So, what do you make of that? Has that ever happened in a film that you've taken?
Do you know how bad the obscuring gets? To about 80% I'd say.
Make that 85%. Now, what tree is that? It's obviously not the tree on the island because that was on the other side of the limo. But, it's not that tree in back either. We're getting a sense here that the trunk of that tree was right there, meaning not far from the curb.
Here's another shot of it:
So, what tree was it? Was is the one on the south side of Elm, a little to the right of center? But, Mark Bell was on a pedestal behind the reflecting pool shooting straight down the lane.
Those trees were not as big in 1963. I tell you, nothing works for this thing. What tree is this?