Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photo Claimed to be of Oswald (which isn't)
156 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Oct 1, 2012, 11:15:14 PM10/1/12
to
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.
http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html
Scroll down to "Oswald in training."
Apparently, it's not Oswald.
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.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
website, a photo which purports to be Lee Oswald shooting an M-1
rifle.
http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html
Scroll down to "Oswald in training."
Apparently, it's not Oswald.
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.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Saintly Oswald
Oct 2, 2012, 2:54:46 PM10/2/12
to
they may be, say that something is so, I tend to believe, it until it is
challenged by somebody.
timstter
Oct 3, 2012, 2:14:22 PM10/3/12
to
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:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10505&relPageId=49
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.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
John McAdams
Oct 3, 2012, 4:41:05 PM10/3/12
to
<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.
<Quote off>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Oct 3, 2012, 4:43:30 PM10/3/12
to
On 3 Oct 2012 14:14:22 -0400, timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
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:
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10505&r=
>elPageId=3D49
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:
>
>elPageId=3D49
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
John Reagor King
Oct 3, 2012, 11:09:18 PM10/3/12
to
In article <5e594d42-7dce-4bf2...@googlegroups.com>,
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.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10720-Marine-rifle-tr
aining-photo-is-not-of-Lee-Oswald
**********
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@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,
> 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.
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.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10720-Marine-rifle-tr
aining-photo-is-not-of-Lee-Oswald
**********
John McAdams
Oct 4, 2012, 9:36:06 PM10/4/12
to
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.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 4, 2012, 10:51:04 PM10/4/12
to
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
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
Dave Yandell
Oct 4, 2012, 11:50:51 PM10/4/12
to
Does this mean that OJ never wore those Bruno Magli shoes as well?
Disorientedly,
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 9:10:48 PM10/5/12
to
timstter
Oct 6, 2012, 10:06:42 AM10/6/12
to
On Oct 4, 6:43 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
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):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1138&relPageId=622
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.
> >elPageId=3D49
>
> >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.
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hi .John,
>
> >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.
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
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):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1138&relPageId=622
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.
timstter
Oct 6, 2012, 6:44:30 PM10/6/12
to
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):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10505&relPageId=49
And its listing on this Stovall Exhibit (item second from bottom):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1138&relPageId=622
We can see that it is for MCRD, Second Battalion, Platoon 2060, NOT
for First Battalion, Platoon 113 which David C. Stuart was in.
This DPD *Property Clerk's Invoice Or Receipt* shows it was item # 71
when transferred to the FBI:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62437&relPageId=109
And when this somewhat poor Dallas Municipal Archives copy of item #
71 is examined:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/20/2095-039.gif
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.
John McAdams
Oct 6, 2012, 8:48:25 PM10/6/12
to
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."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
timstter
Oct 13, 2012, 11:03:19 PM10/13/12
to
On Oct 7, 11:48 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=105...
Thanks. Sorry for the late response.
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! :-)
>
> >And its listing on this Stovall Exhibit (item second from bottom):
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=113...
> >And its listing on this Stovall Exhibit (item second from bottom):
>
>
> >We can see that it is for MCRD, Second Battalion, Platoon 2060, NOT
> >for First Battalion, Platoon 113 which David C. Stuart was in.
>
> >This DPD *Property Clerk's Invoice Or Receipt* shows it was item # 71
> >when transferred to the FBI:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=624...
> >We can see that it is for MCRD, Second Battalion, Platoon 2060, NOT
> >for First Battalion, Platoon 113 which David C. Stuart was in.
>
> >This DPD *Property Clerk's Invoice Or Receipt* shows it was item # 71
> >when transferred to the FBI:
>
>
> >And when this somewhat poor Dallas Municipal Archives copy of item #
> >71 is examined:
>
> >http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/20/2095-039.gif
>
> >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."
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hi .John,
> >And when this somewhat poor Dallas Municipal Archives copy of item #
> >71 is examined:
>
> >http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/20/2095-039.gif
>
> >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."
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thanks. Sorry for the late response.
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! :-)
0 new messages