Re: Backyard Photos
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mL-dnWeL_Y9uKDfZ...@comcast.com...
> pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> I agree. I'm undecided about the photos. Marina, for the record, said
>> she took only one photo. The next thing you know there were three. When
>> I
>
> That was only her earliest statement, trying to deny that she knew about
> the photos. Later she admitted to taking more. I believe she also took one
> which was never found, showing Lee holding the rifle over his head.
>
>> looked into the Stovall/Stovall relationship I found a birth record
>> online for a baby male Stovall born in the same year as Richard, and the
>> father's name is Robert. Robert Stovall was born a few years earlier. It
>> made sense to me that he was Richard's older brother but I never got
>> around to proving it. I recently had the one negative/two negative
>> argument with Gary Mack but was able to convince him it was two. CE 134
>> is the blow-up of CE-133A, and is a FIRST GENERATION PRINT, which means
>> the DPD had the negative. Similarly, 133C Stovall and 133C White were
>> both first generation prints, indicating the DPD had this negative as
>> well. The copies were made by Studebaker, but I don't know anyone who's
>> read his HSCA interview. Anyone?
>>
>> tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> TOP POST
>>>
>>> Hi Pat,
>>>
>>> I don't think the two missing negatives squares with Herbert's theory.
>>> It's important that there was only one and that that was the negative
>>> of CE133-A from what I can tell.
>>>
>>> Interesting about Stovall. I had wondered about the two names myself.
>>> Do you have proof that they were related? The rest is interesting
>>> speculation but that needs to be balanced against the fact that Marina
>>> Oswald has acknowledged that she took the photos and that there exists
>>> a copy of CE133-A with a handwritten dedication from Lee Oswald on the
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim Brennan
>>> Sydney, Australia
>>>
>>> pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> What a lot of people miss is that the DPD stole TWO negatives. The
>>>> negatives to both 133 A and 133 C--which was copied by the DPD and
>>>> distributed to its officers, but never handed over to the WC--have
>>>> never been located. There has obviously been a cover-up regarding this
>>>> fact. Richard Stovall of the DPD returned his first generation prints
>>>> of 133A and 133C to the HSCA, but apparently no one has ever read an
>>>> HSCA report detailing how this came to be. They searched for copies
>>>> without leaving a paper trail? Adding to my suspicion about the photos
>>>> is that Richard Stovall, the officer with the copies and one of the
>>>> officers to find the photos, was almost certainly the brother of Robert
>>>> Stovall, Oswald's former boss at the photography company where Oswald
>>>> said he'd learned to fake photos. Making things even more suspicious
>>>> is that Tippit's widow said Richard Stovall was one of her husband's
>>>> best friends. Hmmm. A good friend of a murdered policeman searches the
>>>> garage of a suspect with no one but his fellow officers around on the
>>>> day AFTER the suspect has been identified, and helps find an
>>>> incriminating photo, which by pure coincidence the suspect says is
>>>> faked because he can recognize fakes because he's made fakes AT his
>>>> former place of employment, which JUST SO HAPPENS, without Oswald's
>>>> knowledge, to have been owned by the brother of the good friend of the
>>>> victim. Subsequently, TWO of the negatives disappear, and one entire
>>>> photo. Even stranger, this photo once recovered has a blurry mark on
>>>> Oswald's hand, which might make one suspicious his stand-in or body
>>>> double FORGOT to take off his wedding ring, and that that is why the
>>>> photo was made to disappear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>>> tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> TOP POST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Herbert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're claiming that the DPD wilfully withheld access to the negative
>>>>>> of CE 133-A from the HSCA on the grounds that it would jeopardise an
>>>>>> ongoing security operation are you?
>>>>> Knowing that they withheld the negative does not tell us who withheld
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you produce one tiny speck of credible evidence to support this
>>>>>> claim? My reading of the conspiracy seeking HSCA is that they would
>>>>>> have been all over this claim like a pack of rabid dogs if it were
>>>>>> true.
>>>>> The Photographic Panel complained that the negative of CE-133A was
>>>>> missing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Source: Report of the Photographic Panel
>>>>>
>>>>> (350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives
>>>>> obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex.,
>>>>> where
>>>>> Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated primarily
>>>>> in the garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among
>>>>> the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box
>>>>> containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot
>>>>> negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (126) (Only one negative was made
>>>>> available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted
>>>>> for.) (127)
>>>>>
>>>>> (370) These items were selected because of the Panel's policy of
>>>>> working just with first generation prints and original negatives.
>>>>> (158)
>>>>> Only these types of materials contain the most reliable photographic
>>>>> information; subsequent generation materials tend to lose detail in
>>>>> highlight and shadow areas, suffer deterioration of tonal quality, and
>>>>> are prone to include new defects that may impair the accurate
>>>>> representation of the photographic image. CE 133-A, CE 133-B, 133A-de
>>>>> Mohrenschildt, 133C-Dees, 133C-Stovall and CE 134 were identified by
>>>>> the Panel as first generation prints. CE 749, the original negative to
>>>>> CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the
>>>>> Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original
>>>>> negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official
>>>>> record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the
>>>>> Warren Commission the other original negative. (159)
>>>>>
>>>>> (386) Finally, CE 134 is an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of the CE 133-A
>>>>> negative. (See fig. IV-23) It apparently was reproduced by the Dallas
>>>>> Police Department by enlargement from the original negative with an
>>>>> easel set that accommodated 8- by 10-inch enlarging paper. The back of
>>>>> the photograph contains an impression from a rubber stamp identifying
>>>>> the Dallas Police Department. (See fig. IV-24) The emulsion scratches
>>>>> and tears are again evidence that this is a first generation print.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Produce your evidence, Herbert, and perhaps I'll believe you.
>>>>> The evidence that the Dallas Police Department recovered two negatives
>>>>> showing Oswald with guns can be found at the following link.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0042-001.gif
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to "junk literature", I have read a number of publications in
>>>>>> making
>>>>>> my responses to you, including the HSCA photographic report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that your interpretation that some sinister force somehow
>>>>>> intercepted the negatives of the wifely backyard snaps of apparent
>>>>>> nobody and failed defector, LHO, inserted an oblique reference into
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of them (CE 133A) and then had them back to Oswald in time for him to
>>>>>> make a copy at work for friends and sign a dedication, never
>>>>>> detecting
>>>>>> the irony that he was holding two newspapers, The Worker and The
>>>>>> Militant, (that he subscribed to anyway), never noticing that
>>>>>> apparently unironic irony, is, well, rubbish Herbert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why is some sinister force going to intercept Oswald's family
>>>>>> photos and alter only one of his negatives at this juncture Herbert?
>>>>>> He's just a little nobody who's done nothing more than buy a few
>>>>>> cheap
>>>>>> weapons under an assumed name and have his wife take a few photos of
>>>>>> him posing in his backyard. He hasn't taken a potshot at anyone at
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> point.
>>>>> Do your homework, Tim. Oswald was a return defector at a time when the
>>>>> FBI was actively tracking return defectors from the Korean War era. In
>>>>> fact they were investigating a former defector throughout 1963 and
>>>>> arrested him for espionage in January 1964. Now consider the
>>>>> circumstances surrounding Oswald's defection. The suicide story
>>>>> raised
>>>>> more than a few eyebrows at the intelligence agencies, since their own
>>>>> agents have employed highly similar stories to cover private
>>>>> communications with foreigners.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Candidly, Herbert, I feel you have used "junk reasoning" in arriving
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> your blatantly absurd and speculative conclusions.
>>>>> Since I have shown that some executive organization of government
>>>>> withheld the negative of CE-133A from the House of Representatives, it
>>>>> behooves you to comment on the legality issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I contend that the HSCA did not seek intervention by the courts
>>>>> because
>>>>> the withholders of the negative acted properly under the security
>>>>> laws.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Herbert
>>
>>
>