NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos” (CE-133-A, B, C) is different from “Oswald’s” so-called rifle and scope (CE 139)

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Here's something for you to think about.  The Mannlicher is found at the TSBD on 22 Nov. 1963 as seen in the Lt. Day photo.  The Life Backyard Photo and the Detroit Free Press photo was I believe in the last part of February.  I don't know when WC CE 139 was taken.  Since it was taken by the FBI I would assume that was prior to February, 1964.  The photos were returned to the Dallas police by the FBI.

Let's say the Life BYP was changed because the scope did not match the photo of Lt. Day holding the TSBD rifle and scope.  Or, it could be someone had already seen the CE 139 and decided to try to match the scope there but fell short, no pun intended.

The Detroit FP version looks like a complete mess made by an amateur.  What do you think?

 

Well the Detroit photo is obviously altered by someone, maybe the Detroit Press. The TSB scope looks like the FBI scope to me, different lighting and in the TSB photo the camera is lower. Nothing stands out to me as wrong.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Here is another comparison you might find interesting:

CE 139 has two round objects of indeterminate appearance.  They may be screws, bolts, or camera objects.  Whatever they maybe they are not found on the Lt. Day rifle version.

The Day rifle appears to be cocked.  That is probably so when he removed the last or 4th Carcano round from the rifle.  IMO, definitely not the same scope.

 

Who removed the last 4th round Oswald or Day? I wonder why either of them would slide the bolt forward as if to chamber another round. The 133a rifle was cocked too.
Those two reflection look like they are coming from the lower part of that x shape on the scope mount. Maybe due to the light in ce139 coming from higher than the TSB photo which appears to be illuminated by a flash on the camera. just a guess.

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Who removed the last 4th round Oswald or Day? I wonder why either of them would slide the bolt forward as if to chamber another round. The 133a rifle was cocked too.
Those two reflection look like they are coming from the lower part of that x shape on the scope mount. Maybe due to the light in ce139 coming from higher than the TSB photo which appears to be illuminated by a flash on the camera. just a guess.

Chris,

I have read that Lt. Day removed the fourth or live round from the rifle.  Day was probably weapons trained in the military or at least by the Dallas Police.  That's generally what you do with a rifle or other weapon you know nothing about.  You first check to see if the weapon is loaded.  A second step generally is to remove the ammo if any and close the bolt and trigger the weapon so it will not be cocked.  That keeps accidents from happening.  Day probably forgot that last step under the stress of the moment.

As far as the photo of the CE 139 photo from Harvey and Lee the bolt does not appear to be cocked.  The distance between the cocked bolt and the rest of the weapon is greater in the Day photo than the CE 139 photo.  Which may indicate it is not cocked.  Maybe half-cocked if the rifle had that feature which I doubt.

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

That is fascinating and that crazy photo is comical.

Chris and Jim,

I agree completely.  I found this article and others also, but couldn't find a good copy to post.  Thanks for doing that.  It just highlights the absurd nature of the whole issue.

[Michael Cross]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I just found this searching through a newspaper database.  Click on the story to enlarge it.

This really, to me, is a massive find.  What the actual F is this? Such massive photo alteration . . . and yet maybe that is the actual rifle from the photos?  Wow.

[John Butler]

Jim,

I have been studying Oswald's 201 file photos at Mary Ferrell.  They are generally of low quality when many of the same photos found on the internet or posted here are of better quality.  I find that suspicious. 

Anyway, I ran across these photos and wondered what could they mean since they were placed in the 201.

These are photos of a Dutch airline plane landing at Keflavik, a naval air station/intelligence area, in Iceland.  People are exiting from the plane and moving towards the terminal.  Someone took these photos, presumably Oswald. 

Any idea where I can find detailed information on Oswald's return trip to the US from Minsk.  Dates and places where he went on that return trip.  My ability to search the internet is limited.  Any search I do these days turns up rather useless, unrelated material.

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

Are you sure Keflavik is a military/intel facility?  I had layovers last summer at Keflavik airport flying to and from Copenhagen.  It’s a big airport for such a little island, filled with connecting flights between N.A. and Northern Europe.  We walked the entire length of the town of Keflavik’s commercial area in just a few minutes.

At any rate, I’m unaware of any Oswald/Iceland connection, including during his travels to and from the U.S.S.R. There is a modest Icelandic connection to Albert Osborne, aka John Howard Bowen, who supposedly sat next to “Oswald” traveling in Mexico. 

The most detailed description of “Oswald’s” return to the U.S. I know of is in Harvey and Lee starting around p. 390.  According to the evidence we have, he and Marina went from Minsk to Moscow, where they stayed for more than a week, and from there by rail to Rotterdam, where they boarded the SS Maasden to Hoboken, New Jersey (near New York City). 

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

This really, to me, is a massive find.  What the actual F is this? Such massive photo alteration . . . and yet maybe that is the actual rifle from the photos?  Wow.

Thanks, Michael.  It surprised me too. John B. found a BYP image of a rifle without a scope and I decided to do some more searching.   There is so much chicanery going on with the “Back Yard Photos” it is practically proof by itself that “Oswald” was framed.

[John Butler]

Jim,

I posted this earlier.  You probably missed it:

"The Keflavík Naval Air Station played an important role during the Cold War, allowing the US to monitor Soviet activities in the North Atlantic. The base played a key role in patrolling the GIUK gap, Greenland-Iceland-UK, through which all Soviet long range aircraft or submarines had to pass before entering the Atlantic."

and, "In its Cold War heyday, the tiny town of Keflavik (population 15,129 today) played an outsized role on the world stage as a strategic outpost for the United States and its NATO allies, keeping an eye on Soviet and Russian activities. The Icelandic airbase was home to thousands of US servicemembers and their families. As Moscow-Washington tensions abated, so did the interest in keeping the base staffed up. By 2006, and over the protestations of the Icelandic government which felt somewhat abandoned, the US government returned control of the base to Reykjavik."

I'm surprised there is nothing left of the US long term presence there.  I'm betting there was a significant ONI presence there involved with radar surveillance of all traffic, air and sea, in that northern part of the world during the time of the Oswalds adventures.  Radar guy goes to a place where he can be debriefed on things learned at the Minsk factory?  Just speculation.

I had known that the Oswald family had returned from Russia by ship across the Atlantic.  I could not remember, if I ever knew, the details of their trip. 

In studying the Oswald 201 file there are scads and scads of mysterious things in the photos there.  This is one that I feel that is of significance.  Why were these photos of the airport at Keflavik put into the file?  Why was a Dutch airline plane photographed and then put into Oswald's file?

In the world of spy vs. spy during the Cold War I can imagine anything might be possible.  There were two Oswalds.  I feel both were in Russia at one time.  Could one have taken a flight to the US and the other with family by boat?

Or,  was the boat trip by the Oswald family a fake.  And, they went by air to Iceland and then to the US.  Could an Oswald been there for a debriefing thus making one on the return to the US unnecessary.  An Oswald could have spent days there (the length of the boat trip).  Military transport from the US installation at Keflavik, Iceland to McGuire Air Force base in New Jersey would be something that could easily be arranged.  McGuire Air Force base / Ft. Dix is not that far from Hoboken, New Jersey. 

This is all speculation and some of the thoughts thought when I first saw these photos.       

Edited July 16, 2019 by John Butler

[Micah Mileto]

17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I just found this searching through a newspaper database.  Click on the story to enlarge it.

Thank you for posting this. Newspaper archives really are like a doorway into another world not categorized by search engines. At one point, Google wanted to create a massive archive of of searchable scanned newspapers, but quickly abandoned the project. 

[Chris Bristow]

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

I have read that Lt. Day removed the fourth or live round from the rifle.  Day was probably weapons trained in the military or at least by the Dallas Police.  That's generally what you do with a rifle or other weapon you know nothing about.  You first check to see if the weapon is loaded.  A second step generally is to remove the ammo if any and close the bolt and trigger the weapon so it will not be cocked.  That keeps accidents from happening.  Day probably forgot that last step under the stress of the moment.

As far as the photo of the CE 139 photo from Harvey and Lee the bolt does not appear to be cocked.  The distance between the cocked bolt and the rest of the weapon is greater in the Day photo than the CE 139 photo.  Which may indicate it is not cocked.  Maybe half-cocked if the rifle had that feature which I doubt.

Yes 133a and the TSB rifles are cocked and ce139 was not. You are right the standard thing to do is close the chamber (Which cocks the weapon) then dry fire it to be sure you didn't miss a round. I use an old Mauser for photographic comparisons and it has never been fired or had a round in it in over 30 years, yet I still cock and dry fire when I use it. That assures I will live to be paranoid another day.

[Chris Bristow]

Seeing some of these other versions of 133a that are altered draws attention to a big question for me. How do we know that the photo was not altered by a news service of magazine? If it was altered by a media outlet then issues I have raised about exposure not being able to hide a dark scope over a lighter background without washing out everything lighter, is moot. If they go beyond just adjusting exposure they can manufacture what we see in the photo.
The Life photo makes for a stronger case because the tiny 'nub' that is the rear of the scope cannot be said to be an alteration that was added to correct the rear of the scope. That 'nub' is too short to be a correction. That rules out alteration to correct the image and leaves no other explanation for a scope that is way to short.
 The only argument left to dispute the Life Mag image is to say a lack of exposure caused the scope to disappear. But if that is the case and the image was not altered then the lack of exposure issue is back on the table. That is that you can't make a dark image disappear before the lighter images behind it are washed out. You can't make the back of the scope disappear into the shirt and still have the middle and front stand out against the same shirt with the same light levels coming off of it.
 The Life "nub' image makes a much stronger case for fakery, imo.
 
 

 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes 133a and the TSB rifles are cocked and ce139 was not. You are right the standard thing to do is close the chamber (Which cocks the weapon) then dry fire it to be sure you didn't miss a round. I use an old Mauser for photographic comparisons and it has never been fired or had a round in it in over 30 years, yet I still cock and dry fire when I use it. That assures I will live to be paranoid another day.

Weapons paranoia is the only way to stay safe around weapons.  I have seen to many accidents.

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Seeing some of these other versions of 133a that are altered draws attention to a big question for me. How do we know that the photo was not altered by a news service of magazine? If it was altered by a media outlet then issues I have raised about exposure not being able to hide a dark scope over a lighter background without washing out everything lighter, is moot. If they go beyond just adjusting exposure they can manufacture what we see in the photo.
The Life photo makes for a stronger case because the tiny 'nub' that is the rear of the scope cannot be said to be an alteration that was added to correct the rear of the scope. That 'nub' is too short to be a correction. That rules out alteration to correct the image and leaves no other explanation for a scope that is way to short.
 The only argument left to dispute the Life Mag image is to say a lack of exposure caused the scope to disappear. But if that is the case and the image was not altered then the lack of exposure issue is back on the table. That is that you can't make a dark image disappear before the lighter images behind it are washed out. You can't make the back of the scope disappear into the shirt and still have the middle and front stand out against the same shirt with the same light levels coming off of it.
 The Life "nub' image makes a much stronger case for fakery, imo.
 
 

 

Chris,

That is a sensible interpretation.  Great job.

[Jim Hargrove]

As a pen-pal of mine noted, the scope-less rifle shown in the newspaper article above may have been taken to Dial Ryder's to be fitted with a scope. 

A framing plot that was abandoned, or saved as an alternative if needed?