Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The "Backyard Photos"

152 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 11:27:20 PM4/8/06
to
The "Backyard Photos" Of Lee Harvey Oswald .... Are They Fakes? Or
Genuine?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soon-to-be Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald arranged for his
wife, Marina, to take a series of three or four photographs with Lee's
Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera on Sunday, March 31st, 1963, just days
after Oswald had acquired (via mail-order) the two weapons that are
very likely depicted in these pictures.

Here's a picture of Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera (designated "CE750"
by the Warren Commission):
http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/images/Real620.jpg

The program contained on this VHS videotape makes the usual attempt to
label the photos as "fakes" and "composites"; and, like other similar
programs which adhere to the standard "CT motto" of -- "Everything Was
Faked In The JFK Case And Cannot Be Trusted" -- this program fails to
"prove" a darn thing to advance the notion of fakery within these
pictures.

The famous and controversial pictures that were taken by Mrs. Marina
Oswald in 1963, which have been dubbed the "Backyard Photographs", show
Lee Oswald, dressed all in black, holding a rifle (almost certainly the
Mannlicher-Carcano weapon that he used to murder President John F.
Kennedy eight months after the pictures were snapped). Lee is also
holding two Russian newspapers in the photos; plus a revolver and
holster are seen as well.

The famous Backyard Photos:
http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/images/CE-133-mini.jpg

Many JFK conspiracy theorists firmly believe that all of these
black-and-white photographs have been faked in some manner (with a
picture of Oswald's head pasted onto the body of an unknown
"conspirator"), in an effort to implicate Oswald in President Kennedy's
November 1963 assassination.

However, such conspiratorial notions are utter nonsense for a variety
of different reasons....and it's quite easy to prove why the "Faked
Photos" theory is full of more holes than a Swiss Cheese factory.

The main questions that CTers need to answer if they think the photos
have been faked/manipulated are:

1.) How did the plotters/photo-fakers get Marina Oswald to ADMIT to
having taken the photos?

2.) How did they get Marina to actually write on the back of one
picture?

3.) And how in the world did these clever plotters get Lee Oswald
HIMSELF to SIGN one of the photographs?*

* = It was proven to be Lee Oswald's own signature on the photo in
which the words "Hunter of Fascists" were also written (in Russian; and
probably via Marina Oswald's own hand). This fact re. the Oswald
signature, all by itself, proves Oswald knew of the existence of the
photographs and proves that they are not forgeries.

Plus, there's the inscription "To my friend George" (De Mohrenschildt)
preceding Oswald's signature on the photo (and the date "5/IV/63"),
matching Oswald's handwriting.

Oswald's statement to the police after his arrest on November 22, 1963
-- when he claimed that the backyard photo he was shown was a composite
forgery -- is just one more lie to add to Oswald's lengthy tome of
untruths that he told the authorities following JFK's assassination.

4.) Why in the wide, wide world of "Presidential Assassination Patsy
Conspiracy Plots" would the perpetrators of this photo-faking scheme
feel there was any need whatsoever to "fake" MULTIPLE pictures that, in
essence, depicted the EXACT same thing (i.e., Oswald with guns and
Russian newspapers)?

In other words, if we're to buy into the idea of the pictures being
fakes, why wouldn't just ONE single snapshot of Oswald holding the
assassination rifle have met the photo-forging requirements of this
band of Patsy-Framers?

Plus, given many CT beliefs re. the matter, why would these plotters
decide to use the EXACT SAME HEAD of Oswald in ALL of the various
"fake" photos? Did these crooks WANT to get caught red-handed? Or were
they just overly cautious (fearing that one or two of the pics might
get "lost" before November 22nd, so they wanted a few back-ups)?

(See how stupid some of this stuff sounds from the "pro-conspiracy"
mindset?)

What does all of this suggest to a reasonable person looking
objectively at the evidence? --- It indicates that each of the March
1963 Neely Street "Backyard Photos" contains a separately-exposed image
of Lee Harvey Oswald, and were photos that he, himself, KNEW existed.

------------------------

Here are some more of my random thoughts regarding the absurdity of the
"Faked Photos" theory (and the craziness of JFK conspiracy talk in
general):

When looking back in hindsight, it's quite remarkable at how successful
Oswald was in duping many people (post-11/22/63) into actually
believing his web of lies. He utters the word "Patsy" one time (after
an obvious lie at that, that falsehood being his "Soviet Union" excuse
for being "taken in" by the DPD), and everyone suddenly wants to
believe him (the man accused of a double-murder)?! Incredible!

He also utters "That's my head pasted on someone else's body" -- and,
guess what, virtually every CTer within earshot jumps on that bandwagon
too -- even though Oswald actually SIGNED one of the pictures he claims
was faked! Ridiculous! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

It's a classic case of a murderer having been caught who is trying
anything he can think of to save his own skin. And in Oswald's case, he
spouted so many lies to the police after his arrest, it's somewhat
difficult to chronicle every one of them (with many of his lies even
being said brazenly to the world via Live TV).

Along similar lines, it's futile for conspiracy believers to continue
to think that it is Oswald we see in the doorway of the Book Depository
in the famous assassination picture taken by James Altgens, when it is
known for a fact that it's Billy Lovelady standing there. But this
"fact" doesn't keep some CTers from still pursuing to this day the
false notion that it was Lee Harvey in the doorway.

It's the same with Oswald's obvious guilt in the J.D. Tippit murder.
Witness Acquilla Clemmons' testimony of having seen two men involved in
the killing of Tippit is NOT a credible account of the event when
balanced and weighed against all the OTHER testimony and evidence that
tells us: Oswald Murdered Officer Tippit Beyond All Reasonable Doubt!
Therefore, it's futile and senseless to continue to search for those
"other Tippit killers". Because no such killers exist, and never did.

------------------------

I can't quite fully understand why most conspiracy theorists just don't
look upon the Backyard Photos as being genuine (which, of course, they
are), and then utilize the "CT" philosophy that these "real" photos
have aided the "Patsy" plan after the fact (i.e., after the shots were
fired by their "look-alike Oswald" on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository on November 22, 1963).

That approach makes much more logical sense (if a person insists upon
believing in conspiracy that is) than accepting as true the
more-illogical approach that has a group of unknown plotters going to
the trouble of faking various photos....photos that (in a very real
sense) do NO GOOD at all with respect to placing their "Patsy" in that
sniper's window with a rifle anyway.

Because.....

The police are going to find out ANYWAY (with or without any "Backyard
Photos") that the revolver and rifle are Oswald's; and they certainly
are going to find out about Oswald's Russian connection (i.e.,
defection) even without the "Militant" newspaper popping up in any
photos (faked or otherwise).

So, if CTers must believe in a "plot" (and they must for some reason),
then this would just be one more "They Got Lucky" aspect to the plan.
Oswald posed for the pictures in March 1963, and the plotters
benefitted from them in November.

Just as a lone-assassin believer peripherally benefits from the "real"
Oswald backyard pictures. They add further circumstantial evidence
against Oswald -- much in the very same way that photographs showing
O.J. Simpson wearing a certain pair of gloves and certain shoes in TV
films provided circumstantial evidence against that double-murderer in
the mid-1990s as well.

The Oswald Backyard Photos are/were a "Bonus", further implicating the
assassin with his weaponry. I cannot understand why the conspiracy
advocates don't view these pictures from this same "These REAL And
Unaltered Photos Of Oswald Are A Nice Bonus, But Not Essential"
point-of-view.

------------------------

Marina Oswald testified in front of the Warren Commission on February
3, 1964, and stated at that time that she remembered taking at least
one photo of her husband Lee, who was decked out in a black outfit.
Marina additionally stated (re. the picture-taking incident): "I
thought he {Lee} had gone crazy." .....

QUESTION -- "Was it on a day off that you took the picture?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "It was on a Sunday."

QUESTION -- "How did it occur? Did he {LHO} come to you and ask you to
take the picture?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with
the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and
asked me to press a certain button."

QUESTION -- "And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was
he?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes."

------------------------

Photo experts for the House Select Committee On Assassinations verified
the batch of backyard pics as genuine. A quote from their final report
on this photographic matter reads:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture
materials." -- HSCA Report; Volume VI

Plus: The dates on the newspapers Oswald is holding in the pictures
also correspond very closely in time to the date the photos were taken.
The papers were dated March 11 and March 24, 1963, perfect timing for
the March 31st backyard photo shoot.

The full HSCA verdict re. the Backyard Photo controversy:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

I'd also recommend reading the bottom of Page 106 of Gerald Posner's
book "Case Closed", where the author tells of his own conversation with
Marina Oswald regarding the photos:

"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," Mrs. Oswald
told Posner. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them
and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never
took them, but that is not the truth."

So, Marina knows for a fact she took some pictures of Lee that day in
Spring 1963 (at least one photo). And Lee Oswald signed the back of one
of the pictures, thereby verifying without doubt that he, himself, was
aware of the photos -- which, of course, thereby renders his comment to
police about them being "fakes" an outright lie.**

** = To think otherwise is to actually believe that there were a
COMBINATION of "Real" and "Fake" Backyard Photos in existence, that ALL
(somehow) "melded" together to show an identical overall scene (with an
identical-looking person holding weapons, newspapers, and with a gun
belt and holster). Sound like a logical conclusion to anyone? I rather
doubt it.

------------------------

A couple of additional semi-troublesome conspiracy-related
complications for which CTers ought to be required to provide
reasonable and believable explanations (other than just the standard
shoulder-shrugging "We Don't Have To Prove Any Details As To HOW It
Happened, We Just KNOW It Did Happen" type of response) would be these
items:

1.) Who was the Oswald "stand-in" that we see in the so-called "fake"
photos of "Oswald" standing in his back yard? If the only part of the
"real" Oswald in the pics is his head, then whose body are we looking
at in the photos? If it's an imposter, the plotters were able to get a
stand-in whose body matched Oswald's perfectly.

2.) WHERE and HOW did these photo-tampering plotters come upon the
photograph of Oswald's "head" that was supposedly plastered onto
someone else's body in the various backyard pics?

After all, a picture of Oswald's head WAS needed in such a CT scenario.
So where did this picture come from? Who supplied it? Or was this, too,
supposedly stolen from Oswald's personal belongings (undetected), along
with the rifle, pistol, and camera? Or did the conspirators take Lee's
picture with their own "Patsy Cam" sometime prior to 03/31/63, instead
of stealing one from Lee's own property?

Or -- Did the plotters have a CHOICE of "Oswald Head Pictures" to
choose from? Because it appears they WERE able to steal (or snap on
their own) a good "match" to plant on the body of the "Fake Oswald" in
the pics.

Plus, in the scenario of the plotters swiping an already-existing pic
of Oswald -- The number of readily-available Lee Oswald photos (circa
1963), showing a RECENT depiction of Oswald (that is, a 23-year-old
Oswald in early 1963 and not a younger Marine Corps-era 17-year-old
LHO, circa 1957 or so) certainly must have been limited in
number....wouldn't you think? After all, the guy wasn't exactly a male
fashion model, having his picture taken every five minutes.

But, then too, according to most conspiracy buffs, I suppose these
little picky details don't matter in the least .... because it would
appear that there were no limits restricting the amount of massive
evidence-tampering, bullet-planting, witness strong-arming, and
photo-manipulation that could be undertaken and successfully pulled off
with ease by these ace conspirators and cover-up operatives. Evidently,
no amount of covert evidence-fakery was beyond the talents and
capabilities of these crackerjack henchmen/assassins.

After all, it was apparently this same amazing team of "Patsy-Framers"
that was actually able to fool most of the world by shooting JFK with
many different guns and then have the whole nine yards pinned on one
lone loser in the Depository who (per many CTers) never even fired a
shot. Heck, faking a few photos in Oswald's back yard I guess would,
indeed, have been a walk in the park compared to what these Kreskins
did on November 22nd in Dealey Plaza!

Anyway, more food for "Conspiratorial Craziness" thought.

------------------------

The overall skepticism displayed by conspiracy theorists towards ALL
figures of authority connected with the JFK murder case has reached (as
my main man, author/lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, would say) "Olympian
proportions" in some CT circles.

And I believe such massive, wide-sweeping, all-encompassing skepticism
re. the "official" findings about every single aspect of the John F.
Kennedy case is unfounded and just plain "wishful CT thinking".

David Von Pein
March 2006

Walt

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 10:04:02 AM4/9/06
to
ONE is authentic the other two are fakes....

Walt
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144553240....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Walt

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 10:04:25 AM4/9/06
to
Your whole post is based on inaccurate, and false information. Marina
Oswald did NOT take ALL of the Back Yard photos. You would serve yourself
well to STUDY the records before you post. Perhaps then you won't appear to
quite so ignorant.

Walt


"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144553240....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 11:49:06 AM4/9/06
to

David VP wrote:
> The "Backyard Photos" Of Lee Harvey Oswald .... Are They Fakes? Or
> Genuine?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I wonder whether you can confront the real issues surrounding the
backyard photographic materials?

The photographic panel of the HSCA found negative scratch marks in
precisely the same locations of all the backyard photographic
materials. However the panel also showed that the signature of the
Imperial Reflex camera had reproducible characteristic features with
considerable variation of minor details from one negative to another.
In other words, backyard photographs and enlargements made from true
negatives would contain camera signatures with considerable variation
of minor details.

Needless to say, the photographic panel could not compare camera
signatures on the negative of CE133-B with the signatures on the
negatives of either CE133-A or CE133-C. To this day nobody has
accounted for the negative of CE133-C or the disappearance of the
negative of CE133-A from official custody.

If you intend to discuss the backyard photographic materials then I
suggest you familiarized yourself with the evidence. For example the
backyard photographs show Oswald holding two English language
newspapers from organizations based in New York City. Is this what you
mean by "holding two Russian newspapers?" If so then your prejudice is
showing, again.

Nevertheless, photographs showing an ideologically aware and former
resident of the Soviet Union holding newspapers of the pro Soviet CPUSA
and the anti Soviet SWP cannot be dismissed lightly, especially when
sending of a photograph to New York City by Lee Harvey Oswald was
equivalent to committing political suicide.

These considerations raise the question of whether Oswald was a victim
of a special activity of the US Government. Under the COINTELPRO
program, agents intercepted and altered communications between domestic
leftists and organizations. The purpose of these activities was
discredit individuals and disrupt operation of the organizations.

Without doubt altering the negatives of the backyard photographs to
show newspapers of mutually antagonistic organizations would fit the
pattern of disruption employed by the COINTELPRO program. The
disappearance of the CE133-A negative from custody of the DPD is
further evidence of an entanglement of the backyard negatives with a
federally sponsored program operating under the cloak of national
security.

<snip Bales of straw>

Herbert

David VP

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 2:31:00 PM4/9/06
to
>>"Your whole post is based on inaccurate, and false information. Marina Oswald did NOT take ALL of the Back Yard photos."


Only a CT Kook/Screwball could conclude this.

So, per some CTers, Marina DID take ONE pic of Oz in his get-up, with
his toys. But this, evidently, wasn't good enough for these brain-dead
plotters attempting to frame their patsy...

No, they want MORE of the exact same pics of LHO. So, they decide to
"fake" two (or three) MORE of the exact same type photos, showing the
exact same thing.

Now...somebody want to tell me how these ace photo-fakers managed to
perfectly duplicate the ONE REAL PICTURE right down the line (although
the "body" is in different positions from shot to shot, so each pic has
to be a new/fresh image)?

And then after you've proven those 2 or 3 pics are fakes (even though
no official Govt. source says so...but they, naturally, are ALL lying
bastards bent on having LHO guilty)....you can then explain the logic
of these Homer Simpson-like plotters when they risked being caught (and
WERE, according to you crack CTers who are claiming the pics are fakes)
by even WANTING to fake additional pictures of a scene WHICH ALREADY
EXISTED IN ONE REAL PIC THE FIRST PLACE?

New CT Mantra --- "I Never Met A Crackpot Conspiracy Theory I Didn't
Make Love To -- INSTANTLY -- And Without A Condom!"*

* = To be placed alongside the #1 CT Motto, which, as always, reads ---
"Anybody But Oswald! Anybody But Oswald!"

aeffects

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 3:18:36 PM4/9/06
to
Stump -- a few around here forgot more than you know about the backyard
photos --

Get back under that rock

Walt

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 2:52:22 PM4/9/06
to

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144607460....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> >>"Your whole post is based on inaccurate, and false information. Marina
Oswald did NOT take ALL of the Back Yard photos."
>
>
> Only a CT Kook/Screwball could conclude this.

Read her testimony to the W.C..... She initally said took the ONE Back Yard
photo that the W.C. lawyer was showing her. She knew that she had only taken
ONE...but then the lawyer showed her another Back Yard photo, and when she
compared the two she realized that they were very similiar she was puzzled.
In an attempt to explain the two different photos she said she must have
inadvertantly snapped the shutter twice ( not realizing that this action
would have produced a double exposure) Years later a THIRD Back Yard photo
was recovered from the widow of a Dallas policeman who told her before his
(accidental ?) death that someday the photo would be "very valuable".

Now, Mr. I know everthing,.... Please address the quandry you have presented
by claiming that Marina took FOUR Back Yard photos. ( Caution! You'll
have to remove your head from your ass to address this problem)
Walt

aaronhi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 1:36:54 PM4/10/06
to
The simplest story about refuting the backyard photos concerns the
rifle strap. It is a cloth strap in the photos. But the MC entered
into evidence had a leather strap. And, the rear attachment for the
cloth strap in the photos is at the bottom of the stock. The rear
attachment of the leather strap on the MC is on the side.

1. Where is the evidence that the strap was changed? The WC had lots
of interesting evidence gathered on LHO, but nothing about this.
2. What about the work necessary to remove the attachment at the
bottom of the stock and replace it with one on the side? Why is there
no evidence of this work (sanded over scratch marks, whatever) on the
bottom of the stock?
3. The leather strap itself? Did it appear to be new? The rifle
could have been anywhere from 20 to who knows what years old. Wouldn't
it have made sense for the leather strap to be brand new, as LHO just
had it attached recently?

Next comes the sight. It is missing from the backyard photos, isn't
it? So it was attached later, you say. But the gun LHO/Hidell/whoever
ordered from Klein's had a scope already attached. And, the stories
and physical evidence of the scope being attached in Dallas were
refuted by the WC.

And, in TKOAP there is a backyard picture with a silhouette cut out,
that was found in the DPD archives about 15 years ago. Raw material to
make a matte insertion forgery, according to Groden.

Armed with these three pieces of information, what am I supposed to
believe about the stories of who took what backyard photo?

Aaron Hirshberg

David VP

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 8:37:55 PM4/10/06
to
>>"Please address the quandry you have presented by claiming that Marina took FOUR Back Yard photos."

Anybody with just a thimble-full of common sense and any gray matter
upstairs at all would know that Marina took ALL of the pics showing AN
IDENTICAL SCENE OF OSWALD WITH TOYS IN BACKYARD AT NEELY STREET ON A
SUNNY DAY.

There is no way she DIDN'T take EVERY picture showing Oswald in the
EXACT SAME GENERAL SCENE/SETTING in that SAME back yard -- regardless
of how many photos there actually are, and regardless of whether she
remembers taking just one, two, or 62.

Only an outright idiot with an I.Q. below 0.75 would think that a band
of Patsy-Framers would go to the trouble of "creating" and falsifying
THREE ADDITIONAL pictures of the exact same thing, when one "real" pic
of "Oswald Holding Guns" already exists.

Explain the logic of such a CT mindset.*

* = Warning: You'll need to study the "Conspirators Manual On Absurd,
Useless, And Superfluous Evidence Fakery" in order to arrive at such a
CT mindset. If you need a fresh copy of that CT Manual/Guidebook, I'm
sure Jim Fetzer or Bob Groden would be glad to let you borrow their
copies.

Walt

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 9:51:29 PM4/10/06
to

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144715875.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> >>"Please address the quandry you have presented by claiming that Marina
took FOUR Back Yard photos."
>
> Anybody with just a thimble-full of common sense and any gray matter
> upstairs at all would know that Marina took ALL of the pics showing AN
> IDENTICAL SCENE OF OSWALD WITH TOYS IN BACKYARD AT NEELY STREET ON A
> SUNNY DAY.
>
> There is no way she DIDN'T take EVERY picture showing Oswald in the
> EXACT SAME GENERAL SCENE/SETTING in that SAME back yard -- regardless
> of how many photos there actually are, and regardless of whether she
> remembers taking just one, two, or 62.
>
> Only an outright idiot with an I.Q. below 0.75 would think that a band
> of Patsy-Framers would go to the trouble of "creating" and falsifying
> THREE ADDITIONAL pictures of the exact same thing, when one "real" pic
> of "Oswald Holding Guns" already exists.

There was only ONE B.Y. photo ( CE 133A) which Oswald created to make
himself appear to be a wildeyed
communist revolutionary. He hoped the photo would be seen by Castro's agents
after his staged "attempt" to shoot an avowed Castro hater....General Edwin
Walker. Oswald gave a copy of that photo to his handler, George De
Morhenschildt. The conspritors wanted a copy of that photo to use in
framing Oswald, but it was not available to them so they created CE 133B and
133C.
When the Dallas police showed Oswald 133C he recognized immediately that it
was a fake, because he knew what the original photo (CE 133A) looked like.
When Lee imediately prounced that the photo was a fake they thought that the
fakery must be really obvious if Oswald spotted it immediately. So they
decided to hide it and keep it from any nosey investigator. If officer
White hadn't swiped a copy of it and gave it to Geneva we would never have
learned of it's existance.

Walt

aaronhi...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 9:36:51 AM4/11/06
to
I have also read in some books that one newspaper was Trotskyite, and
one was sympathetic to Soviet Communism. Weren't the two organizations
that published these newspapers actually politically opposed to one
another? Remember what Stalin did to Trotsky?

Aaron Hirshberg

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 10:55:03 AM4/11/06
to

The book you read was out of date by about five decades.

The SWP, which published the Militant and the CPUSA, which published
the Worker had Trotskyist and Stalinist origins. However, these
organizations abandoned the revolutionary practices of the Troskyists
and Stalinists. During the late fifties the revolutionary members of
the SWP and CPUSA split and formed new parties. By the early sixties,
when Lee Harvey Oswald read the Militant and the Worker these papers
advocated a parliamentary path to socialism and more important
frequently denounced their former members who retained a revolutionary
ideology.

This later point has significance because Lee Harvey Oswald was
reportedly in the Soviet Union during an intense ideological campaign
directed against the Troskyist and Stalinist elements in the socialist
camp. So by prior experience and current readings, Lee Harvey Oswald
should have known that photographs containing guns which are the
symbols of the revolutionary elements and papers of those who were
actively denounced the revolutionaries were highly offensive to the SWP
or CPUSA. Of course the reminder of the Stalin-Trotsky depute of the
twenties was merely rubbing salt into a freshly opened wound.

Herbert

Walt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 1:53:07 PM4/11/06
to

"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144767303.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Herb.... I think you're giving Lee Oswald More credit than he deserves. I
don't believe Oswald recognized the differences, and even if he did, he
didn't care about that when he created the photo that was a buffoons
mistaken attempt at trying to fool Castro into believing he was a wild-eyed
communist revolutionary who was "Ready for Anything". When one takes a
serious look at the Back Yard photo that Oswald created it becomes obvious
that it is a blatantly, amateurish, attempt to fairly scream.... HEY!!..LOOK
AT ME. I'M A RABID COMMUNIST ( Note the newspapers) ARMED ( notice the rifle
in my hands and the pistol on my hip) AND "READY FOR ANYTHING". Only a
fifth grade school boy ( or the American public) could not see motive behind
the photo.

Regards
Walt

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 3:20:04 PM4/11/06
to

Not so, Walt. I only accepted cash from Lee.

vbg,

Herbert

Walt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 3:55:22 PM4/11/06
to

"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144783204.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

"ACCEPTED"..... AHA!! So you admit you "accepted cash" from Lee.... Now
tell me Herb, WHAT was the cash for?? Did you sell him the 6.5mm
Mannlicher Carcano in his hands in CE133A?:) That rifle is definitely NOT
the rifle that was found in the TSBD after the murder of JFK. So I'm curious
where Lee got that rifle.

Walt

David VP

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 5:28:12 PM4/11/06
to
>>"That rifle is definitely NOT the rifle that was found in the TSBD after the murder of JFK."

Of course it was the same rifle (C2766). Marina took the pictures on
Sunday, March 31st, 1963....which is a date that corresponds absolutely
perfectly to a point in time in late March when Oswald would have been
sent BOTH the revolver from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles and rifle
C2766 from Klein's in Chicago (plus the holster seen in the photos as
well).

Both weapons were shipped, in fact, on the exact same day (March 20th,
1963). If the weapons took even a full week to arrive at P.O. Box 2915
in Dallas, they would have arrived 4 days prior to the "photo shoot" in
the Neely St. back yard. The dates on the newspapers also line up
perfectly with the 03/31/63 photo session, with both newspapers almost
certainly having enough time to reach Oswald's hands by Sunday, March
31.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt (who, per rabid CTers, must be yet another WC-bribed
cover-up FBI agent) said he "found no differences" between C2766 and
the rifle Oswald is holding in the Backyard Photographs (WR; Pg. 127).
Shaneyfelt didn't go so far as to say the rifle in the pics is
positively C2766, which is only common sense. He couldn't say such a
thing without actually being able to read the serial number in the B.Y.
pics (which is impossible to do).

But another hunk of common sense (re. the "timing" of those Backyard
Pics) is telling a reasonable person that Oswald received a couple of
new guns in the mail during the last week of March 1963, and decided
(for whatever reason that we'll never be sure of) he wanted Marina to
take some pictures of himself holding these weapons and Communist
literature.*

* = Extremely odd, I will admit, for Oswald to want a picture taken of
himself holding the weapon that I believe he had fully intended (by
that date of 03/31/63) to use on General Walker just days later, on
April 10th.

IMO, Oswald probably bought the rifle to kill General Walker. Now, why
Oswald wanted to be photographed with a weapon he KNEW full well he was
going to use to attempt to assassinate a retired Army general with just
days later....is anybody's guess.

But here's my best guess (as Vince Bugliosi humorously pointed out to
the jury at the LHO Mock Trial in 1986) --- Oswald was
nuts...bonkers...loopy. Period. Only a total nutcase would plan an
assassination and then deliberately have himself PHOTOGRAPHED with the
murder weapon in advance of said murder attempt. But that's EXACTLY
what Oswald did. Oswald was, plainly and simply put -- a Grade-A
certifiable nut.

Footnote........

I'm still waiting for some brilliant CT mind to let the rest of the
world know the answer to this logical question......

WHY WAS THERE A NEED FOR THE "PHOTO-FAKERY TEAM OF CONSPIRATORIAL
PLOTTERS" TO CREATE THREE ADDITIONAL PHOTOS SHOWING OSWALD WITH HIS
GUNS WHEN ONE "REAL" PIC ALREADY WAS IN EXISTENCE (PER MOST CT BELIEFS
OF ONE PIC ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN SNAPPED BY MARINA OSWALD)?

Walt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 8:08:35 PM4/11/06
to

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144790892.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Psssssst.... Perhaps the assassination "attempt" on Walker wasn't really an
attempt at all........ After all nobody was injured by the shooting. There
was just a hole put in the window sash and that was enough to convince the
cops, and reporters, which insured that the story would make the newspaper.
If Marina had done as Lee had instructed her, she would have called Mrs.
Paine and told her that Lee hadn't come home and he had left a strange note.
Ruth would then have called the police and provided the connection between
the shooting at the Walker residence and Oswald's absence. Lee would have
fled to Cuba to avoid prosecution, and the B.Y. photo would have been
published showing the fugitive with the communist papers and the guns. The
idea was that the photo would convince Castro that Oswald was truly a Castro
sympathizer.

Walt

David VP

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 8:25:16 PM4/11/06
to
>>"Ruth would then have called the police and provided the connection between
the shooting at the Walker residence and Oswald's absence. Lee would
have
fled to Cuba to avoid prosecution, and the B.Y. photo would have been
published showing the fugitive with the communist papers and the guns.
The
idea was that the photo would convince Castro that Oswald was truly a
Castro
sympathizer."

Or.......

The photos (plural) show that OSWALD WAS A CERTIFIABLE NUTCASE.

Walt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 9:22:43 PM4/11/06
to

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144801516.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

David, I refuse to try to reason with a man with his head up his ass.....
Therefore I'll no longer respond to you.

Walt
>

David VP

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 9:59:15 PM4/11/06
to
>>"David, I refuse to try to reason with a man with his head up his ass.....
Therefore I'll no longer respond to you."

It'll be an absolute pleasure to be ignored by the likes of a
"researcher" such as yourself. In fact, I'd prefer it.

Happy CT/Ghost Hunting.

And good luck in finding a common-sense reason for your
"plotters/photo-forgers" to have had a desire to fake some pictures
that ALREADY EXISTED. You should be searching for quite a while in
reconciling that little snafu.

DVP

alal...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 12:54:43 PM10/6/12
to

curtjester1

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 2:07:15 PM10/6/12
to
2006??! Better get up to speed!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15525&st=0

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html

http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html

http://www.abovetops...hread411261/pg1

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b292347ad14cf277/4d43ec6ad081b682

CJ

On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2006 8:27:20 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > The "Backyard Photos" Of Lee Harvey Oswald .... Are They Fakes? Or
> > Genuine?
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------------------------------------

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 6:01:39 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2006 8:27:20 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > The "Backyard Photos" Of Lee Harvey Oswald .... Are They Fakes? Or
> > Genuine?
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------------------------------------
==============
Nope. Won't do. Not everyone thinks there had to be 5,000 people
in on a conspiracy. It would taqke very few that were in authority to
carry it out. Now, the "evidence-tampering, bullet-planting, witness
strong-arming" sounds very much like witness statements of how the FBI
was doing things, and the evidence foulups covered the rest. All
corroborated.
==============
> > After all, it was apparently this same amazing team of "Patsy-Framers"
> > that was actually able to fool most of the world by shooting JFK with
> > many different guns and then have the whole nine yards pinned on one
> > lone loser in the Depository who (per many CTers) never even fired a
> > shot. Heck, faking a few photos in Oswald's back yard I guess would,
> > indeed, have been a walk in the park compared to what these Kreskins
> > did on November 22nd in Dealey Plaza!
>
> > Anyway, more food for "Conspiratorial Craziness" thought.
>
As a love it till the end LNer, ol' DVP talks down on theories, and
yet he is a firm believer in the tired old WCR wacky theories
himself! He continuously tries to slide by the testimony of Robert
Frazier and Simmons that the M-C rifle was not fired before they got a
hold of it, and they had to work the bolt many times to free it up
from the corrosion on it and in it just to test it. They also had to
shim the scope to get it to zero in. If the M-C rifle wasn't used by
some shooter in the TSBD, then maybe we'll have to look at the 'Mauser
7.65' that Weitzman saw stamped on the barrel of the rifle when he
identified it, and that Roger Craig corroborated by being there and
seeing Weitzman show it to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nuloZxeW9g

Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
they did) would now be the guilty party. But to go another step past
that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
anything from the SN in the TSBD. Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

> > ------------------------
>
> > The overall skepticism displayed by conspiracy theorists towards ALL
> > figures of authority connected with the JFK murder case has reached (as
> > my main man, author/lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, would say) "Olympian
> > proportions" in some CT circles.
>
> > And I believe such massive, wide-sweeping, all-encompassing skepticism
> > re. the "official" findings about every single aspect of the John F.
> > Kennedy case is unfounded and just plain "wishful CT thinking".
>
Just ol' DVP trying to be the Buggerman.

Chris

SaintlyOswald

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 6:15:33 PM10/6/12
to
I think the photos are genuine and that Marina took all of them. I could be wrong, but this is not a strong point to argue. You don't win a battle by attacking the enemy on all fronts. You win it by attacking his weak spots.

Walt

unread,
Oct 7, 2012, 12:10:34 PM10/7/12
to
Question #1... If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?

Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?

Question #3... Roger Craig claimed that he was further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?

Walt

unread,
Oct 7, 2012, 3:08:26 PM10/7/12
to
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:10:34 AM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:01:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
>
> weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
>
> they did) would now be the guilty party. But to go another step past
>
> that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
>
> anything from the SN in the TSBD. Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
>
> he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
>
>
>
>
>
> Question #1... If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?
>
>
>
> Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?
>
>
>
> Question #3... Roger Craig claimed that he was (NO)further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 7, 2012, 7:33:03 PM10/7/12
to
On Oct 7, 12:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:01:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
> weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
> they did) would now be the guilty party.  But to go another step past
> that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
> anything from the SN in the TSBD.  Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
> he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
>
> Question #1...  If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?

Ah, but the M-C rifle was 'found' quickly and replaced the 'Mauser
7.65' didn't it? So it can be done.
>
> Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?
>
I wouldn't suggest that they wanted to make it look like Oswald
fired a Mauser rifle. He had bought a M-C rifle and that's the one
they had to pin on him, so the shells matched that one.

> Question #3...  Roger Craig claimed that he was further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?

I looked at that video. It was the big cheeses doing their thing
for the cameras. But it picked up just before there was the little
people finding the rifle first. Weitzman and Craig had gotten there
first.
FBI agent - Saying FBI did bad investigation
http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

Chris

Walt

unread,
Oct 7, 2012, 10:24:46 PM10/7/12
to
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:33:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:01:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
>
> > weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
>
> > they did) would now be the guilty party.  But to go another step past
>
> > that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
>
> > anything from the SN in the TSBD.  Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
>
> > he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
>
> >
>
> > Question #1...  If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?
>
>
>
> Ah, but the M-C rifle was 'found' quickly and replaced the 'Mauser
>
> 7.65' didn't it? So it can be done.

The Alyea videos clearly show the rifle being lifted feom beneath the boxes of boks is a Mannlicher Carcano. There are reams of testimony from people who were thre that nobody touched the rifle after it was discovered and before Lt Day lifted it up as Tom Alyea filmed the event.

>
> >
>
> > Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?
>
> >
>
> I wouldn't suggest that they wanted to make it look like Oswald
>
> fired a Mauser rifle. He had bought a M-C rifle and that's the one
>
> they had to pin on him, so the shells matched that one.

Right! .....So why would there be a 7.65 mauser involved???
>
>
>
> > Question #3...  Roger Craig claimed that he was further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?
>
>
>
> I looked at that video. It was the big cheeses doing their thing
>
> for the cameras. But it picked up just before there was the little
>
> people finding the rifle first. Weitzman and Craig had gotten there
>
> first.

Weitzman, and Craig never touched the rifle before Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day lifting it up into view.... And Roger Craig isn't even within six to eight FEET of the rifle. He certainly never got close enough to read any stamping on that Mannlicher Carcano.

mainframetech

unread,
Oct 8, 2012, 7:32:22 AM10/8/12
to
On Oct 7, 10:24 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:33:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 12:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:01:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
>
> > > weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
>
> > > they did) would now be the guilty party.  But to go another step past
>
> > > that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
>
> > > anything from the SN in the TSBD.  Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
>
> > > he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
>
> > > Question #1...  If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?
>
> >    Ah, but the M-C rifle was 'found' quickly and replaced the 'Mauser
>
> > 7.65' didn't it?  So it can be done.
>
> The Alyea videos clearly show the rifle being lifted feom beneath the boxes of boks is a Mannlicher Carcano.  There are reams of testimony from people who were thre that nobody touched the rifle after it was discovered and before Lt Day lifted it up as Tom Alyea filmed the event.
>
Did it occur to you that the big guys did a rerun for the press
cameras?
>
>
> > > Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?
>
> >   I wouldn't suggest that they wanted to make it look like Oswald
>
> > fired a Mauser rifle.  He had bought a M-C rifle and that's the one
>
> > they had to pin on him, so the shells matched that one.
>
> Right! .....So why would there be a 7.65 mauser involved???
>
>
Because no self respecting assassin would use the corroded M-C rifle
that testimony said wasn't in any condition to be fired. See
testimony of Frazier and Simmons.
>
> > > Question #3...  Roger Craig claimed that he was further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?
>
> >   I looked at that video.  It was the big cheeses doing their thing
>
> > for the cameras.  But the video started up just before there was the little
>
> > people finding the rifle first.  Weitzman and Craig had gotten there
>
> > first.
>
> Weitzman, and Craig never touched the rifle before Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day lifting it up into view.... And Roger Craig isn't even within six to eight FEET of the rifle. He certainly never got close enough to read any stamping on that Mannlicher Carcano.
>
A nice theory, but where's the proof that the big guys didn't rerun
it for the press cameras? Now here's the testimony of Capt. Fritz:
"Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they
had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same
thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes
until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get
over there he made pictures of that."

So Fritz himself says that some of the officers that were searching
found the rifle. Now as well, we have the testimony of Lieutenant
Day:
"Mr. Day:
Were taken, I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a
powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I
processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had
finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest
part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted
photographs."

So the lieutenant was also called over after the rifle was found.
So it looks like ol' DVP ran away again. He does that. Pops off
some junk then quickly runs away to do it somewhere else, or advertise
his biased site. Hard man to catch and have a debate with.

Sam McClung

unread,
Oct 8, 2012, 9:25:59 AM10/8/12
to
some sources say day ejected the live round, som say fritz did, and some
sources say they both did simultaneously

take your pick, it's all unsigned testimony anyway

Walt

unread,
Oct 8, 2012, 9:57:59 AM10/8/12
to
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:32:23 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:24 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:33:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 12:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:01:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Oct 6, 12:54 pm, alalov...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Of course, if we take the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle as a possible shooter
>
> >
>
> > > > weapon, then it has no connection to Oswald, and whoever used it (if
>
> >
>
> > > > they did) would now be the guilty party.  But to go another step past
>
> >
>
> > > > that, there's really no proof that a shooter actuially hit anyone or
>
> >
>
> > > > anything from the SN in the TSBD.  Here's a doctor's opinion from waht
>
> >
>
> > > > he saw at Parkland when they brought JFK in:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
>
> >
>
> > > > Question #1...  If the rifle found hidden beneath boxes opf books was a 7.65 and the conspirators intended to frame Oswald.... Why would they plant a rifle that has no known connection to Oswald?
>
> >
>
> > >    Ah, but the M-C rifle was 'found' quickly and replaced the 'Mauser
>
> >
>
> > > 7.65' didn't it?  So it can be done.
>
> >
>
> > The Alyea videos clearly show the rifle being lifted feom beneath the boxes of boks is a Mannlicher Carcano.  There are reams of testimony from people who were thre that nobody touched the rifle after it was discovered and before Lt Day lifted it up as Tom Alyea filmed the event.
>
> >
>
> Did it occur to you that the big guys did a rerun for the press
>
> cameras?


So now you're proposing that the police restaged the finding of the rifle and invited the press to film them doing it,.... but Tom Alyea was the only reporter who accepted their invitation, and was the only reporter who recorded the event??? Are you drunk!!??




>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Question #2... If the conspirators wanted to make it appear that Oswald had fired a 7.65 Mauser and murdered JFK, why would they plant spent 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano shells beneath the window?
>
> >
>
> > >   I wouldn't suggest that they wanted to make it look like Oswald
>
> >
>
> > > fired a Mauser rifle.  He had bought a M-C rifle and that's the one
>
> >
>
> > > they had to pin on him, so the shells matched that one.
>
> >
>
> > Right! .....So why would there be a 7.65 mauser involved???
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Because no self respecting assassin would use the corroded M-C rifle
>
> that testimony said wasn't in any condition to be fired. See
>
> testimony of Frazier and Simmons.

RIGHT!!!.... That's my pont exactly!!.... My point is;... That cranky old Mannlicher Carcano was prepared (by putting a live round in the chamber, and a clip in the ejection port) before it was HIDDEN BENEATH those boxes of books BEFORE BEFORE the shooting and was NEVER FIRED that day.
>
> >
>
> > > > Question #3...  Roger Craig claimed that he was further than "six or eight inches" away from the rifle when he saw.. "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 Mauser".. You've seen Tom Alyea's video of the recovery of the rifle. Does the video show Roger Craig just "six to eight inches" away from the rifle at any time?
>
> >
>
> > >   I looked at that video.  It was the big cheeses doing their thing
>
> >
>
> > > for the cameras.  But the video started up just before there was the little
>
> >
>
> > > people finding the rifle first.  Weitzman and Craig had gotten there
>
> >
>
> > > first.
>
> >
>
> > Weitzman, and Craig never touched the rifle before Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day lifting it up into view.... And Roger Craig isn't even within six to eight FEET of the rifle. He certainly never got close enough to read any stamping on that Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> >
>
> A nice theory, but where's the proof that the big guys didn't rerun
>
> it for the press cameras?

Do you have one iota of evidence that they did??????


Now here's the testimony of Capt. Fritz:
>
> "Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they
>
> had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same
>
> thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes
>
> until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get
>
> over there he made pictures of that."
>
>
>
> So Fritz himself says that some of the officers that were searching
>
> found the rifle.

There's no dispute about Boone and Weitzman finding the rifle where it had been "WELL HIDDEN" ( words of sheriff's deputy).... But they never touched the rifle. A couple of deputies started moving the boxes that were stacked over the rifle but Boone told them to stop handling the boxes because they might have fingerprints on them.
0 new messages