Thomas Graves

Chris, Thanks for the blowup. Nice catch regarding the adjustable pad on the strap. I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this, but she's holding a squarish-looking camera in her left hand. I wonder if that's the experimental / prototype Yashika 8mm movie camera (not "super 8") Beverly Oliver claims Larry Ronco gave her? http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12471&fullsize=1 -- Tommy Also note the light-colored mark on the heel of her left shoe. That might be some of the fresh yellow curb paint she says (in the video) that she got on her shoes on 11/22/63... -- Tommy Is this youngish-looking woman the same as the camera-holding woman, above? (I believe that she is.) Edit: I've been corrected by Mike Walton. This woman was photographed on Houston (near Main; that's "Gerry Patrick Hemming" behind her) as the limo passed by, so she couldn't possibly be Babushka lady. My bad. And is that youngish-looking woman the same as this oldish-looking woman crossing the street? Really? Looks like a different coat style to me. No sunglasses. No purse strap. Older looking woman. Wearing her scarf(?) differently. Etc.

Chris, Thanks for the blowup. Nice catch regarding the adjustable pad on the strap. I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this, but she's holding a squarish-looking camera in her left hand. I wonder if that's the experimental Yashika 8 mm movie camera (not "super 8") Beverly Oliver claims Larry Ronco gave her? http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12471&fullsize=1 -- Tommy Also note the light-colored mark on the heel of her left shoe. That might be some of the fresh yellow curb paint she says (in the video) that she got on her shoes on 11/22/63... -- Tommy

Chris, Thanks for the blowup. Nice catch regarding the adjustable pad on the strap. I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this, but she's holding a squarish-looking camera in her left hand. I wonder if that's the experimental Yashika 8 mm camera (not "super 8") Beverly Oliver claims Larry Ronco gave her? -- Tommy

Thanks Chris. That's what she says in this long video (don't remember exactly at what minute; must watch again). She also says something about having that purse (or maybe a second one?) under her coat, which made he look fat in the 11/22/63 photos. Like I said, I gotta watch it again. Wish it wasn't so darn long. PS See my earlier post about her being fooled by that guy in Finland into believing that she had filmed what was actually filmed by Orville Nix, and confusing the Z-film for the Nix film at one point, etc. -- Tommy

bumped What I've highlighted in red above is the impression I've gotten since becoming a member of the forum. So far, every time I've asked another member why they believe a particular witness is a phony, I've receive IMO lame reasons.. Nevertheless I'm glad there are those on the forum who look for and share reasons not to believe a witness. They save me a lot of time and effort in doing so myself. Sandy, Happy to oblige. BTW, what do you think of my previous post (# 73)? No comment? Anybody? -- Tommy [edit] Note that in Muchmore 42 (which correlates with Zapruder 287), we can see Babushka Lady's brownish (wicker?) purse at her left front, and what looks like a strap going diagonally across her back to that purse. The strap is going over her right shoulder. Credit: Jerry Organ ttp://www.geocities.ws/shotonelm/Knoll/babushka.html I don't see the purse or the strap (unless that's it way down there just above her hip) on the woman in this photo below (by Cancellar? Allen?), leading me to believe that THIS woman is not Babushka Lady. Also, in a different photo of a younger-looking "Babushka Lady," she's definitely wearing sunglasses. The woman in the below photo appears to be wearing glasses. But are they sunglasses? (IDK) Perhaps the strap IS there, and can be seen in a blowup of this photo?

For Sandy "Eagle Eye" Larsen and Robert "Hawk Eye" Prudhomme: You can see the whole photograph here: http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy "To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops." -- Sandy Larsen Do you mean like this "dual-position rear barrel band," Sandy? Did they make them for the 91/38 Shot Rifle? (IDK) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Italian-Carcano-dual-position-Rear-Barrel-Band-carbine-91-24-etc-no-screw-/331952097686?hash=item4d49e30996:g:9SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw [edit] Sandy, FWIW, I'm starting to agree with you that the "rear barrel band" on the rifle in the BY photos had both a bottom (pivoting) loop and a side (stationary) slot for the sling to go through, and that "LHO's" sling went through both of them. So unless someone changed that "rear barrel band" to the more conventional side-only loop type after the BY photos were taken, this proves that .... well, something was rotten in the state of Texas. -- Tommy Yay, we agree on something! Or at least starting to. When I was looking around for sling-mount bands, I found some that look like the one you linked to. I also found some that were stationary on both the side and bottom. Sandy, I can only assume that, due to my time-consuming and masterful cropping and blowing-up of that part of the photo, and putting those red circles there in both of those works of art, you were finally able to see what I was talking about (and which, btw) you were calling a "just a photo defect" ? Yes? Yes? Yes? -- Tommy Here, I'll answer for you. "Yes, Tommy. Thank you very much. And keep up the good work! " -- Sandy Just one niggling little doubt remaining: Do we know for sure that that kind of "dual position" rear barrel band http://www.ebay.com/...SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw was made for the Carcano 91/38 Short Rifle? (I suppose it was. Maybe "one size fit all of 'em, even.) Oh, and just one other itsy-bitsy thing: I'm kinda bothered by the roundness of the thingy I pointed out in my red circles, because when I look at that rear barrel band on eBay (above), I see that the ends of that slot are more squarish. Hmmm... maybe it is just a gosh-darn photographic defect, after all. -- Tommy

For Sandy "Eagle Eye" Larsen and Robert "Hawk Eye" Prudhomme: You can see the whole photograph here: http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy "To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops." -- Sandy Larsen Do you mean like this "dual-position rear barrel band," Sandy? Did they make them for the 91/38 Shot Rifle? (IDK) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Italian-Carcano-dual-position-Rear-Barrel-Band-carbine-91-24-etc-no-screw-/331952097686?hash=item4d49e30996:g:9SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw [edit] Sandy, FWIW, I'm starting to agree with you that the "rear barrel band" on the rifle in the BY photos had both a bottom (pivoting) loop and a side (stationary) slot for the sling to go through, and that "LHO's" sling went through both of them. So unless someone changed that "rear barrel band" to the more conventional side-only loop type after the BY photos were taken, this proves that .... well, something was rotten in the state of Texas. -- Tommy Yay, we agree on something! Or at least starting to. When I was looking around for sling-mount bands, I found some that look like the one you linked to. I also found some that were stationary on both the side and bottom. Sandy, I can only assume that, due to my time-consuming and masterful cropping and blowing-up of that part of the photo, and putting those red circles there in both of those works of art, you were finally able to see what I was talking about (and which, btw) you were calling a "just a photo defect" ? Yes? Yes? Yes? -- Tommy Here, I'll answer for you. "Yes, Tommy. Thank you very much. And keep up the good work! " -- Sandy

Steve, I'm still learning, too. I think the uniformed officer Oliver said she saw on the GK was hatless, and according to her, correlated with an unknown hatless officer photographically "caught" by Robert Hughes a few minutes after the assassination in the railroad yard / parking lot. I'd like to know where Roscoe White was when Beverly Oliver claimed to have made eye contact with him while she was waiting, with a bunch of other potential witnesses, to be pulled aside and questioned. Which she never was, so she left, "because she knew Roscoe would know where to find her if the DPD did want to ask her some questions." Or words to that effect. -- Tommy

Dear James, Devil's Advocate question: Mightn't a true-believer type Communist (I'm not saying Oswald was, mind you) do that? I mean, try to kill both Walker and Kennedy? You know, in the interest of advancing / accelerating the Hegel and Marx dialectial materialism - based ... uhhh, .... "historical process"? -- Tommy

bumped Paul Brancato, I'm not a great student of the "Was Beverly Oliver Babushka Lady" subject yet, but the impression I have so far is that she's the Real Deal, but was, unfortunately, tricked by Mikkonen of Finland into believing that she had filmed something which was actually filmed by Orville Nix from the "infield grass." Another example of her being naiive and a bit uninformed is that in one of her video presentations I watched recently, she calls what is obviously the Nix film (with the limo travelling from right to left) the Zapruder film!" To me, that's such a glaring mistake as to preclude her from intentionally having done that in the hope of hoodwinking people who are interested in the assassination of JFK (and who are, therefore, probably already familiar with the Z-fim and know that the limo goes from left to right in it). The only other problem I have with her at the moment is the fact that she identified the tall FBI agent who took her film on the evening of 11/25/63 as Regis Kennedy, who, allegedly, was in New Orleans at the time. -- Tommy

My response has been moved to the old "Why Beverly Oliver Is Not The Babushka Lady" thread so that Larry and y'all can carry on about Judyth, here. -- Tommy

For Sandy "Eagle Eye" Larsen and Robert "Hawk Eye" Prudhomme: [Two photos with my red circles deleted; see one of them below. -- T. Graves] You can see the whole photograph here: http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy "To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops." -- Sandy Larsen Do you mean like this "dual-position rear barrel band," Sandy? Did they make them for the 91/38 Shot Rifle? (IDK) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Italian-Carcano-dual-position-Rear-Barrel-Band-carbine-91-24-etc-no-screw-/331952097686?hash=item4d49e30996:g:9SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw [edit] Sandy, FWIW, I'm starting to agree with you that the "rear barrel band" on the rifle in the BY photos had both a bottom (pivoting) loop and a side (stationary) slot for the sling to go through, and that "LHO's" sling went through both of them. So unless someone changed that "rear barrel band" to the more conventional side-only loop type after the BY photos were taken, this proves that .... well, something was rotten in the state of Texas. -- Tommy God I wish I had photoshop at work so I could illustrate this, but in order to rotate the rifle above enough to view that side mount for the sling on the bottom as in the BYPs, The top sight would be rotated to an extent that it would either not be visible or be a tiny bump in the BYPs. You've got a bottom mount in the BYP and a side mount above. [Photo of detective carrying rifle outside the TSBD deleted by T. Graves; You can see it in the two previous posts] Dear Michael, I'm saying the rifle in the BYP's has a "rear barrel band" [q.v.] like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Italian-Carcano-dual-position-Rear-Barrel-Band-carbine-91-24-etc-no-screw-/331952097686?hash=item4d49e30996:g:9SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw (with the narrow part of the band at the top of the rifle, obviously), but the rifle the detective is carrying doesn't have this kind of "dual position" barrel band. It has the kind that has just one thing to attach the sling to -- the pivoting metal loop on the left side of the rifle. For confirmation of this, you can look at the internet photos of the left side and bottom of the rifle that was "found" in the TSBD. Why do I emphasize looking at the bottom of the barrel of the "TSBD rifle"? Because you'll see there ain't no "sling mount" there, pivoting or stationary. It's only on the left side of the rifle and it's the pivoting type. This detail from one of the BYP's shows what I'm talking about. Although the pivoting metal loop can't be made out on the bottom of the rifle (bottom = the surface facing the camera) in the un-cropped photo http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/ , it's obvious that it's there because the light-colored "sling" goes through it first and then goes over to the protruding and stationary metal "slot," the very end of which is barely visible as a small dark circle inside my big red circle. If not for the fact that the "sling" is going through that pivoting metal loop on the bottom of the rifle, said "sling" would appear to be defying gravity by "hanging" so weirdly like that from the side slot. -- Tommy

The Imperial reflex camera was first shown by Robert Oswald on Feb 24th 1964, three months after the shooting. He said he found it several weeks after the assassination. "Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother, Robert, a couple weeks later." Neither did the DPD find it when they searched the Paine residence twice. So they were either the most inept policemen ever or the camera wasn't there when they searched. Ray, Didn't an Irving policeman or detective claim to have found it at Ruth's on 11/23/63? "It looked broken, so I didn't take it in or list it as evidence." Or words to that effect. http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2557.pdf -- Tommy Bumped because I was still editing it when Ray replied to it.

The Imperial reflex camera was first shown by Robert Oswald on Feb 24th 1964, three months after the shooting. He said he found it several weeks after the assassination. "Note that the FBI did NOT find the camera in Oswald's possessions. It was brought forward by brother, Robert, a couple weeks later." Neither did the DPD find it when they searched the Paine residence twice. So they were either the most inept policemen ever or the camera wasn't there when they searched. Ray, Didn't an Irving policeman or detective claim to have found it at Ruth's on 11/23/63? "It looked broken, so I didn't take it in or list it as evidence." Or words to that effect. http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2557.pdf -- Tommy

bumped

For Sandy "Eagle Eye" Larsen and Robert "Hawk Eye" Prudhomme: You can see the whole photograph here: http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy "To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops." -- Sandy Larsen Do you mean like this "dual-position rear barrel band," Sandy? Did they make them for the 91/38 Shot Rifle? (IDK) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Italian-Carcano-dual-position-Rear-Barrel-Band-carbine-91-24-etc-no-screw-/331952097686?hash=item4d49e30996:g:9SIAAOSwzJ5XXxbw [edit] Sandy, FWIW, I'm starting to agree with you that the "rear barrel band" on the rifle in the BY photos had both a bottom (pivoting) loop and a side (stationary) slot for the sling to go through, and that "LHO's" sling went through both of them. So unless someone changed that "rear barrel band" to the more conventional side-only loop type after the BY photos were taken, this proves that .... well, something was rotten in the state of Texas. -- Tommy

Paul, Which "she" are you talking about? -- Tommy

Dear Michael, OK. Well, ..... You da man. -- Tommy

Is nothing Judyth says about the JFK assassination true? -- Tommy

For Sandy "Eagle Eye" Larsen and Robert "Hawkeye" Prudhomme: http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy

Sandy, A good indication that the front metal sling thingy is mounted on the left side of the rifle, rather than on the bottom, is the fact that none of the sling / belt is visible near the front. IMHO, if the sling thingy were truly mounted on the bottom as you claim, then we should see the sling / belt connecting to it there. As I pointed out earlier, the color of the sling (rope?) is whitish. It could be that we can't see it against the same color (gray tone) of the fence behind it. In this different BYP, it looks like the belt / sling is attached, both front and back, to the left side of the rifle. To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops. If you look closely, you can even see the roundish spectral highlights [q.v.] on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it larger and easier to see. The circular thingy is right at the black horizontal line in the fence.) http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/ -- Tommy Dear Sandy, Here's the part you didn't address: (I've edited it to make it easier for you to understand.) If you look closely, you can see the round spectral highlights (or round hinge pivot) on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it large enough to see what I'm talking about. The circular thing I'm talking about is exactly at the black horizontal line in the fence.) http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy Well I do see a tiny circle thing up in the shadow of the.... what is that.... the top of the neighbor's fence. And I know what you mean, that it could be the edge of the end of the side mount. The side mount being an oval hoop. But when I look at a larger version of the photo, I don't see the tiny circle thing. The tiny circle seems to be a defect in the picture. No, Sandy. Better get your eyes checked. (lol) Of course if you don't want to see it, you're not going to see it. Are you. Did you actually "click" on the white " + " in the upper right hand corner to make the photo larger? If it's a "photographic defect," it's the most perfectly round (white circle inside a round, dark ring) photographic defect I'VE ever seen. And so nicely-positioned, too, right on the edge of the rifle, immediately above the light-colored "sling," and on THIS SIDE of the "neighbor's fence." --Tommy

I wonder if it's a case of making due with what you have. Since they didn't simply take a guy there, have him pose in different ways, and take the shots, my guess is that they couldn't. Maybe because Marina was always home. Or maybe the neighbors might see them and report the suspicious activity to the Oswalds. It would have certainly seemed a lot less suspicious had someone walked back there, took a few shots, and left. Without any posing. If word of this got back to the Oswald's, they'd just wonder what was going on. We rent a house and I've seen people come over and take pictures and measurements. I thought the landlord was selling his house, but it turns out he was getting quotes from painters. Or was Oswald being monitored from a house nearby, and those doing the monitoring took a photo of the back yard of Oswald's house from a second storey window? Interesting idea, Robert. Had they taken the photo from a second story, then that would explain the need to take a picture of a tilted print. To compensate for the tilted original, they could have tilted the original print at the opposite angle and taken a picture of that to make it look like the picture was taken from ground level (i.e. without the tilt). Too bad Google Earth doesn't go back to 1963. -- Tommy

Sandy, A good indication that the front metal sling thingy is mounted on the left side of the rifle, rather than on the bottom, is the fact that none of the sling / belt is visible near the front. IMHO, if the sling thingy were truly mounted on the bottom as you claim, then we should see the sling / belt connecting to it there. As I pointed out earlier, the color of the sling (rope?) is whitish. It could be that we can't see it against the same color (gray tone) of the fence behind it. In this different BYP, it looks like the belt / sling is attached, both front and back, to the left side of the rifle. To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops. If you look closely, you can even see the roundish spectral highlights [q.v.] on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it larger and easier to see. The circular thingy is right at the black horizontal line in the fence.) http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/ -- Tommy Dear Sandy, Here's the part you didn't address: (I've edited it to make it easier for you to understand.) If you look closely, you can see the round spectral highlights (or round hinge pivot) on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it large enough to see what I'm talking about. The circular thing I'm talking about is exactly at the black horizontal line in the fence.) http://nypost.com/20...ame-since-1963/ -- Tommy

Dear Joe, Leavelle was obviously confused by Mack's lousily-phrased question (the end of it, especially) and assumed Mack was asking how the DPD arrived so quickly at the conclusion Oswald had killed Kennedy, based on the fact that Oswald was already the prime suspect in the Tippit murder. Given that assumption, I think Leavelle was a little bit miffed by the implication that Oswald was formally charged with killing JFK only because the DPD was sure he'd killed Tippit. His being miffed at or taken aback by the question might explain why he looked and sounded so uncomfortable trying to answer it. -- Tommy

I don't suppose Oswald himself could have intentionally made the photo like this so he could point to it later, if necessary, and say "It's fake." -- Tommy