Received: by 10.180.73.173 with SMTP id m13mr10505wiv.4.1349940393282;
        Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Photo Claimed to be of Oswald (which isn't)
Date: 4 Oct 2012 22:51:04 -0400
Lines: 78
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <080954aa-360d-4339-accd-ada2d9acdc5e@googlegroups.com>
References: <7gmk681a6htvu69ggsohsc6hvghl3oe2og@4ax.com> <5e594d42-7dce-4bf2-9e61-a5d6f6382427@googlegroups.com>
 <caeruleo-C839A5.15485803102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Return-Path: <n...@google.com>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
In-Reply-To: <caeruleo-C839A5.15485803102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.93.154.116;
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:26:57 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349405464 166.84.1.3 (4 Oct 2012 21:51:04 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 4 Oct 2012 21:51:04 -0500, 166.84.1.3
Path: q10ni65082116wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!216.40.29.245.MISMATCH!novia!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!news2.arglkargh.de!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 3462
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:09:19 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5e594d42-7dce-4bf2-9e61-a5d6f6382427@googlegroups.com>,
>=20
>  Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > I didn't think that looked like Oswald, but when the authorities, whoev=
er=20
>=20
> > they may be, say that something is so, I tend to believe, it until it i=
s=20
>=20
> > challenged by somebody.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I don't know of any "authorities" having yet claimed that that's Oswald,=
=20
>=20
> depending on what you mean by that term.  Apparently the earliest claim=
=20
>=20
> that that is Oswald originates from Robert Groden, as far as I can tell,=
=20
>=20
> but I might be quite wrong about that.  But somebody has appeared to=20
>=20
> challenge it, the family of David C. Stuart:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> **********
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Via Seamus and via Deb Conway.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> News! The Marine rifle training photo is not of Lee Oswald. According to=
=20
>=20
> exchanges with his family, that man is actually David C. Stuart, who=20
>=20
> enlisted in the Marine Corps in January 1957. He was stationed in San=20
>=20
> Diego, CA, and was a member of the First Battalion Platoon 113. Below is=
=20
>=20
> the photo from his Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957. (the writing says=20
>=20
> "Dave" with a little arrow) Stuart said that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in=
=20
>=20
> his platoon. Apparently they were both born in 1939 and were both=20
>=20
> stationed in San Diego, but Oswald enlisted a few months prior to Stuart=
=20
>=20
> and was in a different platoon.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10720-Marine-rifle-tr
>=20
> aining-photo-is-not-of-Lee-Oswald
>=20
>=20
>=20
> **********