I didn't think that looked like Oswald, but when the authorities, whoever they may be, say that something is so, I tend to believe, it until it is challenged by somebody.
Didn't this photo originate from Oswald's own USMC yearbook?
Oswald joined the USMC in October 1956 and was attached to the 2nd
Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
California.
It sounds like he would have about been graduating from boot camp
about the time David C. Stuart joined the USMC.
There are other photos of Oswald in the yearbook, including one of him
in his dress uniform.
Is the claim that Stuart's dress uniform photo is in the same book as
Oswald's? It seems that every Marine would have at least this photo
printed in their respective yearbooks.
Oswald kept his USMC yearbook until his arrest. You can see it in this
evidence photo, standing up in the case lid:
These yearbooks, at least at the time, had a kind of generic cover of
four marching figures, holding the flags as shown, as far as I'm
aware.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
>website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
>rifle.
>The man is apparently David C. Stuart, who says that the photo is of
>him.
>He enlished in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in
>San Diego, CA.
>He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113.
>He has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which a photo of him that
>he says shows him to be the man in the photo.
Gary Mack e-mailed me with the following:
<quote on>
Looking at the actual yearbook, and later, Jack’s blowups, that guy is
Oswald, no matter what Kelli Moore says. I’d have to see 1959
pictures of David Stuart to change my mind.
>On Oct 2, 1:15=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
>> website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
>> rifle.
>Didn't this photo originate from Oswald's own USMC yearbook?
>Oswald joined the USMC in October 1956 and was attached to the 2nd
>Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
>California.
>It sounds like he would have about been graduating from boot camp
>about the time David C. Stuart joined the USMC.
>There are other photos of Oswald in the yearbook, including one of him
>in his dress uniform.
>Is the claim that Stuart's dress uniform photo is in the same book as
>Oswald's? It seems that every Marine would have at least this photo
>printed in their respective yearbooks.
I'm not sure.
Are you arguing that *if* this is from Oswald's yearbook, it can't be
Stuart?
It's possible you are correct.
>Oswald kept his USMC yearbook until his arrest. You can see it in this
>evidence photo, standing up in the case lid:
In article <5e594d42-7dce-4bf2-9e61-a5d6f6382427@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't think that looked like Oswald, but when the authorities, whoever > they may be, say that something is so, I tend to believe, it until it is > challenged by somebody.
I don't know of any "authorities" having yet claimed that that's Oswald, depending on what you mean by that term. Apparently the earliest claim that that is Oswald originates from Robert Groden, as far as I can tell, but I might be quite wrong about that. But somebody has appeared to challenge it, the family of David C. Stuart:
**********
Via Seamus and via Deb Conway.
News! The Marine rifle training photo is not of Lee Oswald. According to exchanges with his family, that man is actually David C. Stuart, who enlisted in the Marine Corps in January 1957. He was stationed in San Diego, CA, and was a member of the First Battalion Platoon 113. Below is the photo from his Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957. (the writing says "Dave" with a little arrow) Stuart said that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in his platoon. Apparently they were both born in 1939 and were both stationed in San Diego, but Oswald enlisted a few months prior to Stuart and was in a different platoon.
<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
>website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
>rifle.
>The man is apparently David C. Stuart, who says that the photo is of
>him.
>He enlished in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in
>San Diego, CA.
>He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113.
>He has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which a photo of him that
>he says shows him to be the man in the photo.
Gary Mack continues to be fairly confident that this is in fact
Oswald.
From an e-mail he wrote to Debra Conway:
<Quote on>
The original identification came from Mike Tobey, who served in the
same, or a related, Marine unit as Oswald. He knew Oswald at the time
and both he and others recognized him immediately after the
assassination. Tobey was an advertising friend of Jack White and he
and I drove to Mike's office to see his personal copy of the Marine
Corps yearbook in which the photo appeared.
Tobey said not only was the kneeling picture of Oswald, so too was the
one showing him firing from a prone position and a third image showed
him in the barracks but from behind.
Jack photographed the pages and the pictures appeared in an issue of,
as I recall, The Continuing Inquiry. He gave prints to Robert Groden
who put at least two of them in one or more of his books..
The yearbook photos are extremely clear and they certainly look like
other pictures of Oswald at that time. I'd like to see comparison
photos of David Stuart before making a conclusion.
Gary
<Quote off>
It's beginning to look like this really was Oswald in the photo. The
fellow who insisted it was him almost certainly *believes* that (given
that not much facial detail is shown in the photo) but the ID of
Oswald looks fairly solid.
It should be clear from the context what I mean by the "authorities, whoever they may be," is simply the unchallenged prevailing opinion. But it seems that context and meaning are challenging concepts for some, and if I make *that* any clearer, I'm likely to be banned from this forum. :D
> On 3 Oct 2012 14:14:22 -0400, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 1:15=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
> >> website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
> >> rifle.
> >Didn't this photo originate from Oswald's own USMC yearbook?
> >Oswald joined the USMC in October 1956 and was attached to the 2nd
> >Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
> >California.
> >It sounds like he would have about been graduating from boot camp
> >about the time David C. Stuart joined the USMC.
> >There are other photos of Oswald in the yearbook, including one of him
> >in his dress uniform.
> >Is the claim that Stuart's dress uniform photo is in the same book as
> >Oswald's? It seems that every Marine would have at least this photo
> >printed in their respective yearbooks.
> I'm not sure.
> Are you arguing that *if* this is from Oswald's yearbook, it can't be
> Stuart?
> It's possible you are correct.
> >Oswald kept his USMC yearbook until his arrest. You can see it in this
> >evidence photo, standing up in the case lid:
What I'm saying is that if they both had the same USMC yearbook (or
annual) then Oswald's dress uniform USMC portrait and David C.
Stuart's would probably have to appear within a few pages of one
another, so it would be hard to understand the *shock/horror* of
Oswald being mistaken for Stuart (or vice versa) in the rifle range
photo.
I don't think the story stacks up because Oswald's USMC boot camp
annual was for his time in Second Battalion, Platoon 2060, as shown by
this document here (second last item):
Note that some of the other items listed are also in the photo that I
linked to earlier.
If Stuart was in First Battalion, Platoon 113, which is the claim,
then it seems he would be in a different USMC annual to Oswald.
To back up the Stuart claim I think photocopies/scans of the cover and
relevant pages would have to be produced and compared to what is known
about the Platoon 2060 book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:15:14 -0500, John McAdams
> <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
> >website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
> >rifle.
> >The man is apparently David C. Stuart, who says that the photo is of
> >him.
> >He enlished in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in
> >San Diego, CA.
> >He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113.
> >He has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which a photo of him that
> >he says shows him to be the man in the photo.
> Gary Mack continues to be fairly confident that this is in fact
> Oswald.
> From an e-mail he wrote to Debra Conway:
> <Quote on>
> The original identification came from Mike Tobey, who served in the
> same, or a related, Marine unit as Oswald. He knew Oswald at the time
> and both he and others recognized him immediately after the
> assassination. Tobey was an advertising friend of Jack White and he
> and I drove to Mike's office to see his personal copy of the Marine
> Corps yearbook in which the photo appeared.
> Tobey said not only was the kneeling picture of Oswald, so too was the
> one showing him firing from a prone position and a third image showed
> him in the barracks but from behind.
> Jack photographed the pages and the pictures appeared in an issue of,
> as I recall, The Continuing Inquiry. He gave prints to Robert Groden
> who put at least two of them in one or more of his books..
> The yearbook photos are extremely clear and they certainly look like
> other pictures of Oswald at that time. I'd like to see comparison
> photos of David Stuart before making a conclusion.
> Gary
> <Quote off>
> It's beginning to look like this really was Oswald in the photo. The
> fellow who insisted it was him almost certainly *believes* that (given
> that not much facial detail is shown in the photo) but the ID of
> Oswald looks fairly solid.
This sounds right and obviously Gary has seen the actual USMC annual. Groden publishes both the Oswald rifle range photo and the Oswald USMC dress uniform photo in TKOAP and in TSFLHO. There is no credit given in TKOAP but the credit in TSFLHO is given as Jack White.
If we look at the original evidence photo showing the annual (standing upright in caselid):
It STILL shows enough detail to discern that Oswald's seized yearbook
was a Second Battalion one and that the platoon was most likely 2060,
not 113.
Case CLOSED on this one, I think Gary Mack has got it dead right.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>On Oct 5, 11:36 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:15:14 -0500, John McAdams
>> <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
>> >website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
>> >rifle.
>> >The man is apparently David C. Stuart, who says that the photo is of
>> >him.
>> >He enlished in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in
>> >San Diego, CA.
>> >He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113.
>> >He has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which a photo of him that
>> >he says shows him to be the man in the photo.
>> Gary Mack continues to be fairly confident that this is in fact
>> Oswald.
>> From an e-mail he wrote to Debra Conway:
>> <Quote on>
>> The original identification came from Mike Tobey, who served in the
>> same, or a related, Marine unit as Oswald. He knew Oswald at the time
>> and both he and others recognized him immediately after the
>> assassination. Tobey was an advertising friend of Jack White and he
>> and I drove to Mike's office to see his personal copy of the Marine
>> Corps yearbook in which the photo appeared.
>> Tobey said not only was the kneeling picture of Oswald, so too was the
>> one showing him firing from a prone position and a third image showed
>> him in the barracks but from behind.
>> Jack photographed the pages and the pictures appeared in an issue of,
>> as I recall, The Continuing Inquiry. He gave prints to Robert Groden
>> who put at least two of them in one or more of his books..
>> The yearbook photos are extremely clear and they certainly look like
>> other pictures of Oswald at that time. I'd like to see comparison
>> photos of David Stuart before making a conclusion.
>> Gary
>> <Quote off>
>> It's beginning to look like this really was Oswald in the photo. The
>> fellow who insisted it was him almost certainly *believes* that (given
>> that not much facial detail is shown in the photo) but the ID of
>> Oswald looks fairly solid.
>This sounds right and obviously Gary has seen the actual USMC annual. >Groden publishes both the Oswald rifle range photo and the Oswald USMC >dress uniform photo in TKOAP and in TSFLHO. There is no credit given in >TKOAP but the credit in TSFLHO is given as Jack White.
>If we look at the original evidence photo showing the annual (standing >upright in caselid):
>It STILL shows enough detail to discern that Oswald's seized yearbook
>was a Second Battalion one and that the platoon was most likely 2060,
>not 113.
>Case CLOSED on this one, I think Gary Mack has got it dead right.
That's excellent research on your part.
In spite of the nonsense we have gotten from Jack White over the
years, he can't *always* be wrong.
I do file this under "late appearing witnesses are to be greated with
skepticism."
This particular fellow, who thinks it's him in the photo, is almost
certainly sincere. He's not like some crackpots I could name. :-)
> On 6 Oct 2012 18:44:30 -0400, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 5, 11:36 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:15:14 -0500, John McAdams
> >> <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> >I got an e-mail recently from a fellow who has noted, on the JFKLancer
> >> >website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
> >> >rifle.
> >> >The man is apparently David C. Stuart, who says that the photo is of
> >> >him.
> >> >He enlished in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in
> >> >San Diego, CA.
> >> >He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113.
> >> >He has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which a photo of him that
> >> >he says shows him to be the man in the photo.
> >> Gary Mack continues to be fairly confident that this is in fact
> >> Oswald.
> >> From an e-mail he wrote to Debra Conway:
> >> <Quote on>
> >> The original identification came from Mike Tobey, who served in the
> >> same, or a related, Marine unit as Oswald. He knew Oswald at the time
> >> and both he and others recognized him immediately after the
> >> assassination. Tobey was an advertising friend of Jack White and he
> >> and I drove to Mike's office to see his personal copy of the Marine
> >> Corps yearbook in which the photo appeared.
> >> Tobey said not only was the kneeling picture of Oswald, so too was the
> >> one showing him firing from a prone position and a third image showed
> >> him in the barracks but from behind.
> >> Jack photographed the pages and the pictures appeared in an issue of,
> >> as I recall, The Continuing Inquiry. He gave prints to Robert Groden
> >> who put at least two of them in one or more of his books..
> >> The yearbook photos are extremely clear and they certainly look like
> >> other pictures of Oswald at that time. I'd like to see comparison
> >> photos of David Stuart before making a conclusion.
> >> Gary
> >> <Quote off>
> >> It's beginning to look like this really was Oswald in the photo. The
> >> fellow who insisted it was him almost certainly *believes* that (given
> >> that not much facial detail is shown in the photo) but the ID of
> >> Oswald looks fairly solid.
> >This sounds right and obviously Gary has seen the actual USMC annual.
> >Groden publishes both the Oswald rifle range photo and the Oswald USMC
> >dress uniform photo in TKOAP and in TSFLHO. There is no credit given in
> >TKOAP but the credit in TSFLHO is given as Jack White.
> >If we look at the original evidence photo showing the annual (standing
> >upright in caselid):
> >It STILL shows enough detail to discern that Oswald's seized yearbook
> >was a Second Battalion one and that the platoon was most likely 2060,
> >not 113.
> >Case CLOSED on this one, I think Gary Mack has got it dead right.
> That's excellent research on your part.
> In spite of the nonsense we have gotten from Jack White over the
> years, he can't *always* be wrong.
> I do file this under "late appearing witnesses are to be greated with
> skepticism."
> This particular fellow, who thinks it's him in the photo, is almost
> certainly sincere. He's not like some crackpots I could name. :-)
> But "sincere" can be consistent with "mistaken."
Yes, I think Jack White got this one right and did some good work
here. My recall is there are at least two more photos of Oswald
holding a rifle in the book, one of them as described above by Gary,
showing Oswald firing from a prone position.
I think you've summed things up correctly. More a question of being
sincerely mistaken than trying to insert oneself into history like
some folks attempt to do. Not mentioning any names, of course! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
