Oswald "rifle pose' photo
argon
is genuine or whether it was faked or manipulated? Anthony Summers reckoned
that the photo may be genuine...
More generally, does any student of JFK conspiracy believe that Oswald was
NOT involved with the CIA prior to Nov 22?
Walt
"argon" <ar...@ntlworld.ie> wrote in message
news:QLlR9.650$H%4.177369@newsfep2-gui...
authentic B.Y. photo that Marina took of her husband, Lee Oswald. CE 133B
is a fake that was created because the conspiritors had seen the original
photo and wanted a copy of it to use in the framong of Oswald. They
actually made two fake photos the second one is the one that the showed
Oswald on saturday evening and he immediately pronounced it to be a fake.
( He knew it was a fake.. because he knew what the original looked like)
The cops thought that since Oswald had seen it as a fake immediately then
they had better keep it out of public view. They hid that photo and
withheld it from evidence ( a felony) It surfaced 15 years later and is now
called 133C.
Walt
Martin Shackelford
Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she
took the photos.
Martin
O.H. LEE
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
>Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she
>took the photos.
Martin, I'm curious. Was Mrs. Oswald certain she took ALL of the backyard
photos that have surfaced? Do you know how many she claimed to have taken?
Do you know how many BY photos Mr. Brown showed her? These questions are
a matter of some concern Martin. As you are probably aware, Walt claims that
Marina did indeed take one authentic BY photo, but ONLY one! If this is what
she remembered and what her early testimony showed, we still have a major
problem here. Agreed? Or are you fairly certain that she took all three?
Regards,
O.H. LEE
>Martin
>
>argon wrote:
>>
>> Have there been any recent developments concerning whether the famous
photo
>> is genuine or whether it was faked or manipulated? Anthony Summers reckoned
>> that the photo may be genuine...
>> More generally, does any student of JFK conspiracy believe that Oswald
was
>> NOT involved with the CIA prior to Nov 22?
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Walt
"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3e16...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
> >Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she
> >took the photos.
>
> Martin, I'm curious. Was Mrs. Oswald certain she took ALL of the backyard
> photos that have surfaced? Do you know how many she claimed to have taken?
> Do you know how many BY photos Mr. Brown showed her? These questions are
> a matter of some concern Martin. As you are probably aware, Walt claims
that
> Marina did indeed take one authentic BY photo, but ONLY one! If this is
what
> she remembered and what her early testimony showed, we still have a major
> problem here. Agreed? Or are you fairly certain that she took all three?
>
> Regards,
> O.H. LEE
It's obvious that Marina only took ONE photo.....
When she was testifying before the W.C. the Lawyer showed her a BY photo
and asked her if she had ever seen it before.....She acknoledged that she
had snapped that photo..... then he handed her annother BY photo and at
first she thought it was the same one she had just seen but when she
compared them side by side she saw that they were two different
photos....She was at a loss to explain how there could be two photos because
she only remmbered taking ONE... In an attempt to explain the second photo
she SPECULATED that she might have snapped the shutter twice .....She didn't
realize that snapping the shutter twice would only have created a double
exposure.
Walt
Walt
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3E16411F...@concentric.net...
> In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
> Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she
> took the photos.
>
> Martin
Do you really believe that Martin????
If Marina snapped all three photos......Explain 133C ??
Why wasn't it presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A and CE
133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time because. It
surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gave her a copy of
133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money someday.... Additional
evidence that the cops had 133C can be seen in the book 1st Day's
evidence....
Rusty Livingston a Dallas detective at the time of the assassination kept
much of the evidence from the assassination in an old briefcase. 133C was
one of the two photos that was in that old briefcase......
If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the W.C. along with CE
133A and CE 133B?????
Walt
Walt
"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v1cvmfi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:3E16411F...@concentric.net...
> > In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she took
the photos.
> >
> > Martin
Do you really believe that Martin????
It stretches the imagination to the breaking point when you read Marina's
testimony before the W.C...
She said she had snapped ONE B.Y. photo..... Then they showed her another
photo and she was befuddled because she didn't know their were TWO BY photos
but she speculated that she might have inadvertantly snapped the second one
by pressing the shutter twice....
15 years after her testimony a third BY photo surfaces.
Do you think she pressed the shutter THREE times??
Why wasn't 133C presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A and
CE 133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time because,
Mary La Fontaine found some evidence in the DPD archives that the Dallas
Police had been tampering with that photo at the time of the assassination.
A copy of it surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gave
her a copy of 133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money someday....
Additional evidence that the cops had 133C can be seen in the book 1st Day's
evidence....
Rusty Livingston a Dallas detective at the time of the assassination kept
much of the evidence from the assassination in an old briefcase. 133C was
one of the two photos that was in that old briefcase......
If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the W.C. along with
CE133A and CE 133B?
They didn't give it to the W.C. because that"s the photo that they showed
Oswald and he immediately prounced it to be a fake...
Want proof??? Look at Appendix XI in the W.R.......
Under the heading " Report of Capt. J.W, Fritz, Dallas Police Department,
there is a report written by Capt. Fritz... That report reveals that
Captain Fritz had 133C in his hands on Saturday morning. ( He lied to the
W.C. and said the DPD didn't have a BY photo BEFORE two were found at the
Paine residence late Saturday affternoon.
Fritz wrote: " Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 AM (11-23-63) At
12:35 PM oswald was brought to the office for another interview with
inspector Kelley and some other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald
about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where
he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked
to be the same rifle we had recovered. This picture showed to be
taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the back yard."
Fritz's report is undated, But we know he is referring to the 12:35 / 1:10
interrogation session of 11-23-63 because but when the information in the
report is compared with the information in his hand written notes it is
clear that he asked Oswald about a B.Y. photo during the 12:35 to 1:10
interrogation session........
Some folks argue that Fritz never mentioned the photo until a 6:30 pm
interrogattion session. Fritz actually showed Oswald a BY photo during the
6:30 session, (Oswald immediately pronounced it to be a fake) but Fritz was
asking questions that reveal he seen the photo during the 12:35 /1:10
session.
There is corroboration that Fritz was asking questions aimed at finding out
where the photo was taken during the 12:30 /1:10 interrogation session.
Inspector Kelley's reports are published in Appendix XI in the W.R.....
Kelley's report about the 12:30 / 1:10 session reveals that Fritz was askin
Oswald about the places he ( Oswald) had lived. Kelley may not have been
aware that Fritz had a B.Y. photo and was ignorant as to Fritz's motive for
askin about the places O had lived....... But Fritz said in his report that
he asked Oswald about the places he had lived:...
Quote on.....
" IN AN EFFORT TO FIND WHERE HE WAS LIVING WHEN THE PICTURE OF HIM HOLDING
A RIFLE WHICH LOOKED TO BE THE SAME RIFLE WE HAD RECOVERED. THIS PICTURE
SHOWED TO BE TAKEN NEAR A STAIRWAY WITH MANY IDENTIFING THINGS IN THE BACK
YARD" End of Captain Fritz's Quote
So while Kelley may have been ignorant to Fritz's reason for askin about the
places...He corroborates that Captain Fritz asked about places where the
picture could have been taken.......This took place during the 12:30 / 1:10
pm interrogation session....BEFORE the B.Y. photos were "discovered" at the
Paine house.
Kelley said in his report that imediately after the CONCLUSION of the
session members of the homicide division secured a search warrant for the
Paine house.
Walt
Martin Shackelford
the Warren Commission, I don't know, but Marina did say she took the
photo. Argue with her, Walt.
Martin
Walt
> Of course the Dallas police had the photo. Why they didn't pass it on to
> the Warren Commission, I don't know, but Marina did say she took the
> photo. Argue with her, Walt.
>
> Martin
Thank you..... You acknowledge that you have no basis to support your
argment.
Telling me that Marina said something, that may, or may not be true is
nothing but slithering back under yer rock...
Walt
Walt
>
> "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v1cvmfi...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E16411F...@concentric.net...
> > > In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
> Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she took
> the photos.
> > >
> > > Martin
>
> Do you really believe that Martin????
> It stretches the imagination to the breaking point when you read Marina's
> testimony before the W.C...
>
> She said she had snapped ONE B.Y. photo..... Then they showed her another
> photo and she was befuddled because she didn't know their were TWO BY
photos
> but she speculated that she might have inadvertantly snapped the second
one
> by pressing the shutter twice....
> 15 years after her testimony a third BY photo surfaces.
> Do you think she pressed the shutter THREE times??
In Appendix XI in the W.R.......
Under the heading " Report of Capt. J.W, Fritz, Dallas Police Department,
there is a report written by Capt. Fritz... That report reveals that
Captain Fritz had 133C in his hands on Saturday morning. ( He lied to the
W.C. and said the DPD didn't have a BY photo BEFORE two were found at the
Paine residence late Saturday afternoon.
Fritz wrote: " Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 AM (11-23-63) At
12:35 PM oswald was brought to the office for another interview with
inspector Kelley and some other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald
about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find
where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which
looked to be the same rifle we had recovered. This picture showed to be
taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the back yard."
It's important to know that Fritz had a BY photo on saturday morning BEFORE
two were found at the Paine residence..... because That information raises
the question....Where did Fritz get the photo??
I believe the paragraph following the one about the BY photo reveals where
Fritz got the photo.
Fritz wrote his report after the interrogations and used one event to
remember another event.... It's common...We all do it. Example:.... Cousin
Joe was born in October of 70.... I remember that because Uncle Tom had just
bought a brand new 71 Chevy, and they had been on the market only a couple
of months.
At anyrate..... Fritz wrote:
Quote..."Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 a.m. (11-23-63) At 12:35
p.m. Oswald was brought to the office for another interview with inspector
Kelley and some other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald about the
different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was
living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked to be
the same rifle we had recovered. This picture showed to be taken near a
stairway with many identifying things in the back yard. He told me about
one of the places where he had lived.
Mr.Paine had told me about where Oswald lived on Neely Street Oswald was
very evasive about this location"........ end quote
Fritz was using his memory to reconstruct events....He was thinking about
the B.Y. photo and how he had obtained it when he wrote:.... Mr.Paine had
told me about where Oswald lived on Neely Street Oswald was very evasive
about this location".
The last sentence in the preceding paragraph says: Oswald was very evasive
about this location"........
So we know that Oswald didn't tell him about the Neely street
location.......
Fritz got that information, and the photo from Mike Paine...
Walt
Martin Shackelford
do.
Avoiding a cogent response? A little slithering on your part, Walt.
Martin
Walt
> I cited a source who, it is likely, knows more about the matter than you
do.
Oh you've got an "expert"....... How interesting!
John McAdams
>Have there been any recent developments concerning whether the famous photo
>is genuine or whether it was faked or manipulated? Anthony Summers reckoned
>that the photo may be genuine...
It's unlikely there will ever be "recent developments" that mean much
in the face of the definitive scientific authentication of the photos
by the HSCA in the 70s. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>More generally, does any student of JFK conspiracy believe that Oswald was
>NOT involved with the CIA prior to Nov 22?
>
>
Lots of people don't believe that, since there is no evidence he was
-- unless you push the notion "evidence" to include rank speculation.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:v1cvmfi...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:3E16411F...@concentric.net...
>> > In 1995, shown all of the extant photos, Marina Oswald told researcher
>Walt Brown (editor/publisher of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly) that she took
>the photos.
>> >
>> > Martin
>
> Do you really believe that Martin????
>It stretches the imagination to the breaking point when you read Marina's
>testimony before the W.C...
>
>She said she had snapped ONE B.Y. photo..... Then they showed her another
>photo and she was befuddled because she didn't know their were TWO BY photos
>but she speculated that she might have inadvertantly snapped the second one
>by pressing the shutter twice....
>15 years after her testimony a third BY photo surfaces.
>Do you think she pressed the shutter THREE times??
>
The three photos were all authenticated by the HSCA.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Then there is the question of why the Evil Minions of The Conspriacy
would want to fake any extra Backyard Photos. They already have one,
by their your own admission. It's enough to tie Oswald to the rifle
and portray him as a violent type.
Why risk exposure by faking two additional ones?
> Why wasn't 133C presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A and
>CE 133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time because,
>Mary La Fontaine found some evidence in the DPD archives that the Dallas
>Police had been tampering with that photo at the time of the assassination.
No she did not.
She showed that the DPD had been trying to recreate the photo. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf3.txt
>A copy of it surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gave
>her a copy of 133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money someday....
Which provides the motive for his taking it.
>Additional evidence that the cops had 133C can be seen in the book 1st Day's
>evidence....
> Rusty Livingston a Dallas detective at the time of the assassination kept
>much of the evidence from the assassination in an old briefcase. 133C was
> one of the two photos that was in that old briefcase......
>
>If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the W.C. along with
>CE133A and CE 133B?
>
>They didn't give it to the W.C. because that"s the photo that they showed
>Oswald and he immediately prounced it to be a fake...
>
I thought you believed that 133-C was faked?
Why would the Evil Minions of the Conspiracy fake a photo and then
keep it secret? What would be the point?
Just how does any of this show the Dallas cops had 133-C? All you
posted above is consistent with 133-A or 133-B.
>So while Kelley may have been ignorant to Fritz's reason for askin about the
>places...He corroborates that Captain Fritz asked about places where the
>picture could have been taken.......This took place during the 12:30 / 1:10
> pm interrogation session....BEFORE the B.Y. photos were "discovered" at the
>Paine house.
>
> Kelley said in his report that imediately after the CONCLUSION of the
>session members of the homicide division secured a search warrant for the
>Paine house.
>
So you think 133-C was forged?
If so, why?
Martin Shackelford
Walt
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3e1b396c....@news.alt.net...
The HSCA was nothing less than a continuation of the Warren
Commission.....Neither were truly interested in finding the truth. They
needed to keep that truth hidden, because the peasants might have revolted
if they knew that thier elected President had been gunned down by orders
from a power hungry lunatic named Johnson.
That secret is kept from the American public to this very day.....National
security don't ya know....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
> Then there is the question of why the Evil Minions of The Conspriacy would
want to fake any extra Backyard Photos. They already have one, by their
your own admission.
Oh really Perhaps you could point out where I said the Evil Minions had a BY
photo..... I said, Mike Paine had seen the ORIGINAL BY photo (CE 133A) and
he gave a FAKE copy (133C) resembling the original to Captain Fritz on
Saturday morning. Was he one of the "Evil Minions"??.....Perhaps you know
something that I don't know??
It's enough to tie Oswald to the rifle and portray him as a violent type.
It only ties Oswald to the rifle if you've got yer head in yer ass and can't
SEE that the rifle in the ORIGINAL BY photo is NOT the rifle that was found
in the TSBD....
>
> Why risk exposure by faking two additional ones?
Huh???....Are you now saying that there were THREE fake photos..... I'm
only aware of TWO fakes, CE 133B and 133C.
>
> > Why wasn't 133C presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A
and
> >CE 133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time because,
> >Mary La Fontaine found some evidence in the DPD archives that the Dallas
> >Police had been tampering with that photo at the time of the
assassination.
>
> No she did not.
> She showed that the DPD had been trying to recreate the photo. See:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf3.txt
>
You believe that if ya want.....Mr. Gullible...
> >A copy of it surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gave
> >her a copy of 133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money
someday....
>
>
> Which provides the motive for his taking it.
>
Damn yer dumb...... Regardless of Whites motive....the fact remains he had
a COPY of a FAKE photo that the Dallas police had and withheld ( a felony)
from the W.C.
> >Additional evidence that the cops had 133C can be seen in the book 1st
Day's
> >evidence....
> > Rusty Livingston a Dallas detective at the time of the assassination
kept
> >much of the evidence from the assassination in an old briefcase. 133C
was
> > one of the two photos that was in that old briefcase......
> >
> >If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the W.C. along with
> >CE133A and CE 133B?
> >
> >They didn't give it to the W.C. because that"s the photo that they showed
> >Oswald and he immediately prounced it to be a fake...
> >
>
> I thought you believed that 133-C was faked?
DUH..... Have someone who can comprehend the written word tell you what this
means....I wrote: " If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the
W.C. ......
The subject of that question is 133C
> >They didn't give it ....( the word "it is referring to 133C ) to the
W.C. because that"s the photo that they showedOswald and he immediately
pronounced it to be a fake...
> >>
> Why would the Evil Minions of the Conspiracy fake a photo and then keep it
secret?
DUH......Oswald told the cops the photo they had was a fake and he could
prove it. ( He KNEW 133C was a fake because he knew what the original photo
that he had Marina take looked like, and the photo they were showing him was
NOT that photo. ) They resoned that if that photo was such an obvious fake
that Oswald spotted it in a heartbeat, then they had better keep it away
from the public.... They had allowed Oswald to be murdered while in their
safe keeping and they certainly didn't want anything released that would
have raised questions about his guilt.
Bullshit ......The didn't find CE 133A & B until late saturday
afternoon.....Fritz was asking questions that revealed he had seen a BY
photo (133C) BRFORE they officially had a BY photo.
>
> >So while Kelley may have been ignorant to Fritz's reason for askin about
the
> >places...He corroborates that Captain Fritz asked about places where the
> >picture could have been taken.......This took place during the 12:30 /
1:10
> > pm interrogation session....BEFORE the B.Y. photos were "discovered" at
the
> >Paine house.
> >
> > Kelley said in his report that imediately after the CONCLUSION of the
> >session members of the homicide division secured a search warrant for the
> >Paine house.
> >
>
> So you think 133-C was forged?
>
If so, why?
Been there ....Done that.....
Do you want some help in pullin yer head out ??
Walt
Walt
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:45:14 -0000, "argon" <ar...@ntlworld.ie> wrote:
>
> >Have there been any recent developments concerning whether the famous
photo
> >is genuine or whether it was faked or manipulated? Anthony Summers
reckoned
> >that the photo may be genuine...
>
>
> It's unlikely there will ever be "recent developments" that mean much
> in the face of the definitive scientific authentication of the photos
> by the HSCA in the 70s. See:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>
After you see whatever this link takes you to....LOOK at an UNCROPPED copy
of CE 133B.... Notice that the rifle being held by the imposter is pointing
to the Eleven O'clock position.....Notice that the shadow being cast by that
rifle is pointing to the nine O'clock position.
There are many other anomalies in CE 133B and 133C but this one is so simple
and apparent that a blind man could see it.
> >More generally, does any student of JFK conspiracy believe that Oswald
was NOT involved with the CIA prior to Nov 22?
> >
> >
>
> Lots of people don't believe that, since there is no evidence he was --
unless you push the notion "evidence" to include rank speculation.
There may not be a lot of "evidence" lying around ( what intelligence agency
worth its cloak and dagger would leave hard evidence lying around?)but
common sense
sure as hell indicates Oswald was an agent of the United States Government.
Oswald was debriefed on the ship on it's way across the Atlantic. The
agents debriefing him accused him of taking money from the Russians because
he had accepted money from the Red Cross. The accusation really pissed
Oswald off .....He wrote:
"I shall never sell myself, intentionally or unintentionally to anyone
again."
"As for the $ (money) I was supposed to receive for this (mission) I refuse
it."
He left the words in parentheses blank and drew a line to indicate a word
was missing at that pplace in the sentence.
Now, tell me again that Oswald wasn't an agent......
Walt
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Of course the Dallas police had the photo. Why they didn't pass it on to
>the Warren Commission, I don't know, but Marina did say she took the
>photo. Argue with her, Walt.
>
It's important to remember that it didn't show anything that the other
photos didn't also show. Therefore it's hard to see why there would
be any reason for the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy to keep it
secret.
Indeed, if one believes the photos were faked, one has to explain why
the Evil Minions would fake a photo and then hide it.
.John
--
Walt
> On 05 Jan 2003 02:52:41 GMT, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course the Dallas police had the photo. Why they didn't pass it on to
> >the Warren Commission, I don't know, but Marina did say she took the
> >photo. Argue with her, Walt.
> >
>
> It's important to remember that it didn't show anything that the other
photos didn't also show.
WRONG!!! The Original BY photo shows a rifle that is NOT the rifle that was
found in the TSBD.
That may be one reason that the conspirators created CE 133B and 133C.....
They wanted a photo of "Oswald' with that rifle.
Therefore it's hard to see
So you admit it's hard to see.....I've already told you how to remedy that
problem....
why there would be any reason for the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy to keep
it secret.
>
> Indeed, if one believes the photos were faked, one has to explain why the
Evil Minions would fake a photo and then hide it.
Because Oswald told them it was an obvious fake.....They commited a FELONY
and kept it hidden rather than run the risk that others woulsd see the
fakery.
With only two photos to compare against each other, it is impossible to
determine which one is a fake but with three photos it becomes possible to
determine which one doesn't fit..... The face of Oswald is EXACTLY the same
in both CE 133B and 133C.....it is different in CE 133A.
Walt
>
> .John
God, I love it when you display your ignorance for all to see.....
I've said repeatedly.... CE 133A was the authentic photo that Marina
took....Ce 133B and 133C are Fakes....
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:3e1b396c....@news.alt.net...
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:34:55 -0800, "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The three photos were all authenticated by the HSCA.
>
>The HSCA was nothing less than a continuation of the Warren
>Commission.....Neither were truly interested in finding the truth. They
>needed to keep that truth hidden, because the peasants might have revolted
>if they knew that thier elected President had been gunned down by orders
>from a power hungry lunatic named Johnson.
>That secret is kept from the American public to this very day.....National
>security don't ya know....
This is nothing but an ad hominem attack on the HSCA.
>
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>>
You're not going to address their technical arguments, are you?
>> Then there is the question of why the Evil Minions of The Conspriacy would
>want to fake any extra Backyard Photos. They already have one, by their
>your own admission.
>
>Oh really Perhaps you could point out where I said the Evil Minions had a BY
>photo..... I said, Mike Paine had seen the ORIGINAL BY photo (CE 133A) and
>he gave a FAKE copy (133C) resembling the original to Captain Fritz on
>Saturday morning. Was he one of the "Evil Minions"??.....Perhaps you know
>something that I don't know??
>
Why would Paine give a fake to the Dallas police? If the point is to
implicate Oswald, why not just give 133A to the cops?
>It's enough to tie Oswald to the rifle and portray him as a violent type.
>
133A was of better photographic quality, and did the same thing.
>>
>> Why risk exposure by faking two additional ones?
>
>Huh???....Are you now saying that there were THREE fake photos..... I'm
>only aware of TWO fakes, CE 133B and 133C.
>
Why fake 133B and 133C? 133A does the job fine. Why mess with
success?
>>
>> > Why wasn't 133C presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A and
>> >CE 133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time because,
>> >Mary La Fontaine found some evidence in the DPD archives that the Dallas
>> >Police had been tampering with that photo at the time of the
>assassination.
>>
>> No she did not.
>
>> She showed that the DPD had been trying to recreate the photo. See:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf3.txt
>>
>
>You believe that if ya want.....Mr. Gullible...
>
>
Look at the evidence. Taking a backyard photo several days after the
assassination couldn't be part of a process of fakery, since the
foliage looked very different, reflecting seven months of growth.
>> >A copy of it surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gave
>> >her a copy of 133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money
>someday....
>>
>>
>> Which provides the motive for his taking it.
>>
>Regardless of Whites motive....the fact remains he had
>a COPY of a FAKE photo that the Dallas police had and withheld ( a felony)
>from the W.C.
>
You are being verbally slippery here. At least *one* Dallas cop had
it and "withheld" it. That doesn't mean that Day and Fritz and Chief
Curry "had" it and "withheld" it.
>> >
>> >They didn't give it to the W.C. because that"s the photo that they showed
>> >Oswald and he immediately prounced it to be a fake...
You actually think that Oswald's claim that it was faked was any sort
of evidence?
You don't think suspects lie when faced with incriminating evidence?
And what is you basis for saying that 133C was the one shown to
Oswald?
>> >
>>
>> I thought you believed that 133-C was faked?
>
>DUH..... Have someone who can comprehend the written word tell you what this
>means....I wrote: " If Marina took 133C why didn't the DPD present it to the
>W.C. ......
>
>The subject of that question is 133C
>
Because Roscoe White has taken it.
Note that 133A and 133B showed exactly what 133C showed, and were of
better photographic quality.
>> >They didn't give it ....( the word "it is referring to 133C ) to the
>W.C. because that"s the photo that they showedOswald and he immediately
>pronounced it to be a fake...
>> >>
>> Why would the Evil Minions of the Conspiracy fake a photo and then keep it
>secret?
>
>DUH......Oswald told the cops the photo they had was a fake and he could
>prove it.
So what?
>( He KNEW 133C was a fake because he knew what the original photo
>that he had Marina take looked like, and the photo they were showing him was
>NOT that photo. )
But why fake 133C?
Why not just show Oswald the genuine photo, show it to the press, give
it to the WC, etc.?
You have an extraordinarily convoluted theory here.
>They resoned that if that photo was such an obvious fake
>that Oswald spotted it in a heartbeat, then they had better keep it away
>from the public....
You are really taking Oswald claim at face value, aren't you?
Oswald was a poor patsy. He wouldn't *possibly* lie, would he?
BTW, 133C was not only not an obvious fake, it passed muster with the
HSCA FPP just fine. It was a genuine item.
>They had allowed Oswald to be murdered while in their
>safe keeping and they certainly didn't want anything released that would
>have raised questions about his guilt.
>
Huh?
How would 133C have raised questions about his guilt?
>> >
>> > Quote on.....
>> > " IN AN EFFORT TO FIND WHERE HE WAS LIVING WHEN THE PICTURE OF HIM HOLDING
>> > A RIFLE WHICH LOOKED TO BE THE SAME RIFLE WE HAD RECOVERED. THIS PICTURE
>> > SHOWED TO BE TAKEN NEAR A STAIRWAY WITH MANY IDENTIFING THINGS IN THE BACK
>> > YARD" End of Captain Fritz's Quote
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just how does any of this show the Dallas cops had 133-C? All you
>> posted above is consistent with 133-A or 133-B.
>>
>
>Bullshit ......The didn't find CE 133A & B until late saturday
>afternoon.....Fritz was asking questions that revealed he had seen a BY
>photo (133C) BRFORE they officially had a BY photo.
OIC, you are trying to resolve a conflict in dates by producing an
elaborately convoluted theory of the three photos.
That's not good logic.
Failure to accept that Oswald might lie and that members of the DPD
might be confused about time-lines is guaranteed to get you into a
logical quagmire.
Walt
Paine gave Captain Fritz a B.Y. photo to implicate Oswald.......
Clap....Clap...Clap
He didn't have a copy of CE 133A to give Fritz....He had a copy of 133C....
The question is: Where did he get it??
>
> >It's enough to tie Oswald to the rifle and portray him as a violent type.
> >
>
> 133A was of better photographic quality, and did the same thing.
>
> >>
> >> Why risk exposure by faking two additional ones?
> >
> >Huh???....Are you now saying that there were THREE fake photos..... I'm
> >only aware of TWO fakes, CE 133B and 133C.
> >
>
> Why fake 133B and 133C? 133A does the job fine. Why mess with success?
They didn't know they would get their hands on the original BY photo ( CE
133A) that Marina took.
Mike Paine had seen the original photo ( by his own admission) but he didn't
know how he could get a copy of it. George De M had a copyright on his
copy of the BY photo.
>
>
> >>
> >> > Why wasn't 133C presented to the Warren Commission along with CE 133A
and
> >> >CE 133B??? We know that the Dallas police had 133C at the time
because,
> >> >Mary La Fontaine found some evidence in the DPD archives that the
Dallas
> >> >Police had been tampering with that photo at the time of the
> >assassination.
> >>
> >> No she did not.
> >
> >> She showed that the DPD had been trying to recreate the photo. See:
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf3.txt
> >>
> >
> >You believe that if ya want.....Mr. Gullible...
> >
> >
>
> Look at the evidence. Taking a backyard photo several days after the
assassination couldn't be part of a process of fakery, since the foliage
looked very different, reflecting seven months of growth.
>
HUH??? Apparently you've got yer head stuck tighter than I thought....
One of the photos that Mary La F
found was a back yard photo with NOBODY in it...Just a blank BY .....ready
to use to insert any figure desired.
it surfaced in the hands of the widow of a Dallas Cop who gaveher a copy of
133C and told her it would be worth a lot of money smeday....
> >>
> >>
> >> Which provides the motive for his taking it.
> >>
> >Regardless of Whites motive....the fact remains he had
> >a COPY of a FAKE photo that the Dallas police had and withheld ( a
felony)
> >from the W.C.
> >
>
> You are being verbally slippery here. At least *one* Dallas cop had it
and "withheld" it. That doesn't mean that Day and Fritz and Chief
> Curry "had" it and "withheld" it.
>
Duh.....You really should ave someone who can comprehend the written word
tell you what Fritz's wrote about the interrogation session for 12:35
/1:10....
Oswald's claim it was faked was any sort
> of evidence?
>
Of course it's evidence you moron......
You don't think suspects lie when faced with incriminating evidence?
Sure they do.....But a suspect can also recognize instantly that he is being
framed.... Oswald knew when they showed him the fake photo he was being
framed.
Immediately after the interrogation session he placed a COLLECT long
distance call to Mr. Hunt in Raleigh N.C.
He talked to Mr. Hunt for 30 minutes....( A long conversation for the
normally taciturn Oswald)...Do you think he called Mr Hunt to dicuss the
weather? He had just seen evidence that he was being framed and He wanted
help.
>
> And what is you basis for saying that 133C was the one shown to Oswald?
Damn ....I've told you several times....Oswald told Fritz the photo they
showed him was a fake. Fritz reasoned that if Oswald ( who told Fritz he
was an expert on photography ) spotted the fakery so fast then it must be
pretty obvious .....Hence,they decided to keep it away from the public.
Oswald knew it was a fake....not because the fakery was so obvious, but
because he knew it wasn't the photo he had Marins take of him in the B.Y.
At this point ..... I'll ask the lurkers to respond to my question.... Do
you understand what I'm telling Mc Madman?? Do you find it convoluted?
Or do you think Mc Madman is a little obtuse?
We'll see......
Walt
Dave Rees
Hi scuse me butting in, but where can I see a copy of any of these
photos?
Dave
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:32:43 -0800, "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com>
Walt
"Dave Rees" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8tqp1vcdbmnas0m0r...@4ax.com...
>
> Hi scuse me butting in, but where can I see a copy of any of these
> photos?
>
> Dave
>
for books on the Kennedy assassination.....
Many books have copies of the photos....( High Treason, The Killing of a
President are two )or they might be available at some websites. But a word
of advice....
keep in mind that there are three photos...... CE 133A, CE 133B, and
133C....( There is no CE preceeding 133C because it was not a Warren
Commission Exhibit...The Dallas police had withheld it from the W.C. )
Don't make the mistake that hundreds of viewers have made over the
years..... That mistake is: They have attempted to find information about
the photos by comparing one against the other ( originally they had only CE
133A and CE133B )
Take each photo as a separate photo and examine it for anomalies..... One
anomaly you should spot right off is in CE 133B.... The rifle is point at
the 11 O'clock position, but the shadow on the ground shows the rifle was
pointing to the 9 o'clock position..... an impossibility.....
CE 133A is the original photo snapped by Marina Oswald....It shows Lee
Oswald holding a rifle that is different than the rifle that was found in
the TSBD and different than the rifle shown in CE 133B and 133C.
Walt