After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook.  This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports

True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Really?

The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.

Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.

Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?

Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.

Bingo!

Martin's four year old post,

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3504.msg131753.html#msg131753
....
That's just Guy Rose's recollection. And it simply doesn't make sense, because Bentley had already identified him in the car as Oswald and he knew they had his wallet. So, why in the world would Oswald say his name was Hidell.
.....

And....

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/rose_g.htm
....
Mr. ROSE. I went on duty shortly after the assassination. At the time of the assassination I was not on duty.
Mr. BALL. Did somebody call you and ask you to come on duty?
Mr. ROSE. No; I came in just as soon as I heard of the shooting--I came on to work.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
Mr. BALL. What did you say to him or did he say to you?
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first came in there--you said that he said his name was "Hidell"?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Did he give you his first name?
Mr. ROSE. He just said "Hidell"; I remember he just gave me the last name of "Hidell".
Mr. BALL. And then you found two or three cards on him?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Were you sitting down?
Mr. ROSE. No; I was standing in the interrogation room.
Mr. BALL. Where was he--was he standing too?
Mr. ROSE. No; he was sitting in the chair.
Mr. BALL. Was he handcuffed?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. Were the handcuffs behind or in front of him?
Mr. ROSE. I believe they were behind him--I don't remember for sure.
Mr. BALL. Who else was present at that time?
Mr. ROSE. Detective Stovall, he was my partner, and I believe both uniformed men were present--two of the uniformed men were present.
Mr. BALL. The ones who brought him in?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Do you know their names?
Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--I did see McDonald and I did talk to him, but I don't remember whether he was the one that was standing right there at the time or not.
Mr. BALL. After you saw the cards, you asked him which one was his true name?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. ROSE. He said, "You find out."[/quote

VS Bentley's statement,

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=252

Which is the superior image?
Which contains the more detail?

Bumped for newcomers like Brian

This is the 'Lovelady' image Bart Kamp produced from a large print obtained for him from the collection of Richard Sprague.



This image seems to include an incredible amount of detail, particularly on the shirt of 'Lovelady'.
However, the print from which Kamp got this 'Lovelady' image is of such poor quality that is very hard to understand how this amount of detail could be present when far superior pictures show no such detail.
Kamp alludes to this contradiction in his description of how he came across the Sprague print:

"This...Scan of a Couch film still at first looks very harsh and doesn’t overall have much information, but it does happen to show a lot regarding our illustrious duo. This print comes from the Richard E. Sprague Collection from the National Archives."

How can it be that the Sprague print "doesn't overall have much information", yet the part of it showing Lovelady's shirt does?

This is a copy of the Sprague print that Kamp used to get his image of Lovelady from:



Look at the poor quality of this image in general. How washed out it is and how there is a lack of fine detail. As Kamp points out, there is not much overall information in this print, as it is of such poor quality.
In contrast, here is an image from the Couch footage taken from "Four Days In November":



Look at how superior this image is in quality, look at how much more detail is present in this image, how much more information is present overall.
One would have thought that the more detailed picture of 'Lovelady' would come from this superior image.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
The picture of 'Lovelady' that has the very fine detail (of the distinctive check pattern of his shirt) comes from the inferior image.
How can that be?

This is a crop of 'Lovelady' from the Sprague print and 4 Days.



How was Kamp able to obtain such fine detail from the inferior Sprague print when no such detail is present in the far superior copy from 4 Days?

Again... After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook.  This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Think about it.

After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook.  This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports

True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.

Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).

Really?

The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.

Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.

Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?

Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.

Zapruder's camera was a recording device. If it didn't record something in 1963, we can't just add something in 63 years later and still claim it is the Zapruder film. AI can't perform magic. It can create the illusion of magic.

   Not talking about "AI". For whatever reason You're stuck on "AI". A = "Artificial". Not talking about anything "Artificial".