Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Jack White]

Jack, my response is that your graphic of the two pics is inconclusive. Note that I'm not going to play pure photo analyst here because I'm going to import outside information (age) to arrive at my answer.

The two photos differ in photographic conditions so much that I do not share your conclusion about distance between eyebrows. I cannot tell what the distance between eyebrows is in the Dealey Plaza photo taken at 12:30 in bright overhead sun. That photo shows deep shadows and, combined with blurriness of the picture, leaves me uncertain about how far apart the man's eyebrows are. Distance between eyebrows, on the other hand, in the photo taken indoors under very favorable lighting conditions are easily seen and are clearly sizable, a wider-than-normal gap.

What I notice as a difference between the two photos is not distance between eyebrows but the bridges of the nose, namely, in the Plaza pic the bridge looks narrow and includes a shadow due to a sinus brow or furrow in the skin, while the bridge of the nose in the indoor pic looks broader without a noteworthy brow or furrow.

I would reconcile the difference in the two images as caused by two differences: in the indoor pic bright lighting (likely a camera flash) minimized facial shadows and the man was years younger in that photo than the (same) man who was pictured outdoors in the Plaza. My claim is that furrows appear and deepen with age.

Conclusion: the photo comparison is inconclusive because of differences in
photographic conditions and age of subject.

Now consider this generalization: non-photographic evidence is frequently more compelling than photos. This is especially true if direct, unimpeachable evidence says "A," while photos say A, B or C.

I am pleased that you agree with my conclusion that the comparison
of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE, which is my consistent position.
I have consistently said that AGE differences make a direct comparison
impossible. I really do not understand what all this fuss is about.

On your other point, I have seen NO unimpeachable evidence so far.
Perry Mason would agree with me, I think.

Thanks.