And note that I said this in my write-up:
"And NO! You can't attribute it all to perspective. It's just too much. Even considering the perspective, Beaty can't be in the same spot that he is in Beers and Jackson."
Perspective refers to the angular difference, which is something I talk about a lot. I've pointed out, for instance, the the Moorman photo was taken from a different perspective (read: different angle) than the angle at which Mary took her picture- by her own admission. But, in this case, we've got a space there, and there are 5 men in that space, and all of them are behind the wall that juts out from the door in the corner. If you look closely, there is a door there.
So now, let's look at Beers. What we see are just 3 men in the same space, the Beaty, the deepest, is in front of the edge of the wall, which is behind him.
So, number 4 from the original image is now standing in front of the jutting wall, meaning caddy-corner. He was behind it in KRLD.
And again, we can use the edge of the all as a frame of reference in both pictures.
Where is #5 in the Beers photo? He is farther down the other side of that wall. He's in front of the face of that jutting wall in KRLD, but he is on the other side of it in Beers. This is obviously NOT the same arrangement of men.
But, let's review because it has been pointed out before that the arrangements in Beers and Jackson are not the same, even though they are supposed to be just half a second apart.
So, how come we don't see Blackie Harrison in Beers? Puffing away on his cigar as he reaches for the gun with his impossibly long arm. Why shouldn't he be visible in Beers? Or why shouldn't at least his gorilla arm be visible?
And what about McMillan in Beers? Why don't we see him in Jackson?
Shouldn't we see him in Jackson? Or do you think he was so skinny he got hidden? Well, he wasn't that skinny. Look at him in the Penguin shot:
It turns out McMillon was bigger than Blackie Harrison.
Or maybe you think it was all due to the angle, eh Backes?
But, let's get back to Beers vs. Jackson:
Of course, there is the microphone difference. Note that in the Beers photo it is lower than the top of the door, while in Jackson we can see the top of the door, and there is a lot of elevation above it. You can't tell me that the mic was there, just that it was higher. That is ridiculous. The whole purpose of putting a mic is to get it close. But, why was there a mic in Beers at all when this was supposed to be just a guy being walked 30 feet to a car and then driven away? Who puts a mic up for that? They put a mic up to walk Oswald to a car?
Another problem in Jackson is that L.C. Graves right shoulder is completely missing.
Note that Graves' jacket registered very dark in the grey-scale. On our left, there is a shoulder, but it is the right shoulder of the man behind, who wore a lighter suit. We see Graves' left shoulder but not his right. Where is it? And don't tell me he is turned and standing sideways because he is NOT turned and standing sideways.
It might be worthwhile for us to look at where Beers and Jackson were in the schematic. This is according to the late Gary Mack:
So, Gary Mack placed them right on top of each other. Here is how Robin Unger depicted it:
So, both left of center, but Beers less so than Jackson. He has Jackson up close to the car because Jackson actually claimed to put his foot up on the bumper of the car. But, let's go back:
Let's consider the position of Tom Petit. In Beers, he is completely within the cubbyhole with a guy behind him, and then the corner of the wall behind him. In Jackson, Petit has his back to the other wall, and we don't see the other guy at all. And look at the change in Leavelle's position. All of this supposedly occurred in half a second.
How in half a second could all that difference take place? And that includes the ridiculous slapping of Oswald's arm to his chest, which we do not see in any film, and which defies common sense (because why would anyone do that? And when else has anyone done it? show me another trauma photo in which an abdominal gunshot victim slapped his arm to his chest; this is the only one. There is no tendency for anyone to do that. Not anyone. You hear me?)
Notice that the distance between the cop in the white hat and the detective in the Stetson hat is much greater in Jackson. In Beers, the man in the Stetson is largely in front of the cop.
Note that the man in the Stetson is behind Oswald and in front of the cop in uniform. In Jackson, there is no one between Oswald and the cop in uniform.
And I repeat: NO! You can't attribute it all to perspective. It's just too much. Even considering the perspective, there is a difference there- a difference in how and where they are positioned; in how and where they are placed.
The flaming lip-flapper will no doubt continue to flap, but the truth is that the only way the legitimacy of these images can be defended is to go there, reproduce the scene, and then, without moving anyone, take the photos from the locations of Beer and Jackson and see if you can reproduce each image exactly as it appears.
What are the chances that anyone can do that? They are zero. And if anyone wants to place a wager on it, I've got my checkbook handy. I'm sure we can find an impartial judge. Maybe even get a photographic expert. I have no objection. I welcome it.