Ed LeDoux

lamson does not care because he gets his ass handed to him along with the facts! Try keeping up with us Craig. And just cause its IN a photo does not make Craig an expert on the evidence shown in the photo.

Craig thinks the pics are real...Kinda hard to argue with that, except for the simple pill to swallow that is LHO never ordered a rifle or received one, likewise with the pistol. Yet Craig will measure a fake picture and scream the measurements are correct. Correct for what? A faked photo. These things escape Lamson... Plus this notion of someone being a "CT" as Craig puts it. I know he must not read other threads where conspiracy is proven...again these things escape Lamson. Craig, its only a theory till there is factual evidence shown. Then it is no longer conjecture. And no we don't want to 'try again', we got it right, you need to.

There is a reference to a Benrus wrist watch #476343 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=734079 FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 229

When it was done by Jack White with the backyard pictures, the head/body did have mismatched proportions. That was the point of that exercise, to show this fact. (Thanks to Bernice for the video link to FAKE) Not positive we can 'prove' a great deal by comparison to/with other LHO photos, but may be worth a try. The HSCA did a Penrose study with his head. But they threw out the three most important data points(one was the CHIN!). A rather large omission when that is what your charged with investigating! HEY WANNA SEE MY WATCH...I mean bracelet Der. 4/6/64 MARINA OSWALD was interviewed at her place of residence, 629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Texas. She was questioned further concerning the silver-colored' bracelet, which LEE HARVEY OSWALD had given her following his return to Dallas, Texas, after his trip to Mexico. She said this bracelet was very similar to a bracelet which LEE HARVEY OSWALD wore. His bracelet had the name 'LEE' engraved upon it . She stated she believed OSWALD purchased his bracelet about the time they were residing on Elsbeth Street, or perhaps during the time they rented a place on Neely Street. She recalled OSWALD's watch had been in disrepair and, instead of having the watch fixed, he bought the bracelet and wore it in place of the watch. On a previous occasion, when OSWALD's watch was in disrepair, he had had it fixed at Leonard's Department Store in Port Worth, Texas. This was at a time when they resided in Fort Worth. She believes OSWALD was working at Jaggars-Chiles-stovall at the time he purchased the bracelet. MARINA said she does not know where OSWALD purchased the bracelet which he presented her. OSWALD did not say he had purchased it In Mexico. He presented it to her within the first hour after they were reunited following his trip to Mexico. She recalls seeing a bracelet very such like the bracelet which he gave her in the Woolworth Store at New Orleans. She did not like the bracelet and never wore it. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1844 The fact that LHO did not have a wristwatch and had pocket watches would be a large nail in the backyard photos coffin. Add the fact the bracelet was likely purchased before the Neely Backyard photos and we have a serious problem with a wristwatch wearing Lee. Too bad we can't zoom in on that rascally backyard wristwatch to see what time it is, maybe it even had a date function so we can see what day too. lol Thanks again to Bernice for that Elgin POCKET WATCH pic Who's watch? http://cityofirving.org/library/archives/accessions/mvf-5-10/7-11.asp On the supposed water spot: “One thing is the sheer coincidence that this line just happens to fall in the chin area; that this one edge of this one particular water spot is supposed to have left deposits in such a way as to form a line that coincidentally starts at one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and then ends at the other side - right where Oswald's head could have been attached to the body. I mean, this would be a good place to join a head to a body in a composite, in the chin area, and here we have a line in that region, and it's supposed to be a water spot.”~ Brian Mee http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#backyard Note: Dallas police officer R. L. Studebaker testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that in 1963, while working in the Dallas Police Department Photography Laboratory, he made numerous copies of the Kennedy photographic evidence for fellow Dallas police officers ; included in the pictures distributed were prints of CE 133-A and CE 133-B as well as of the third pose not seen by the Warren Commission. Testimony of R. L. Studebaker, supra note 127 I see pass them out like party favors or like candy to children Pass them to everyone who asks...except the FBI and Warren Commission!!

PS: Ed, it was bad enough when Ray Carroll was the funnel for Mack/Dunkel. If he has something to say, let him say it himself. He has been doing this stuff for years on end. Is there a clause in his contract at the Holocaust Denier Museum that says he cannot post online? If not, then let him man up and post himself. I thought it was important to re-post Larry's question(?) How I answered it and how he still evaded that answer. Plus we all know Larry doesn't post. Duplicating the Nose Shadow? With CLAY AND STICKS? Good luck Craig. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/fraud.htm I always had it, if there were quaint family pics, an original would be of LHO holding June in the backyard, perhaps there even was a picture of an empty yard/garden what with Lee trying to show Marina how to take a picture? If that is a baby blanket folded up by the stairs, then someone "has to be" holding the baby.

And back from Mack: Sorry, Ed, but both women knew about the BY photo controversy and they said it was a fourth pose from the same picture-taking event. So if the pictures are fake, Oswald faked them – ALL of them - months prior to the assassination. But why? I’ve been asking this question for years and no one has an answer. Do you? Gary Cc: Craig Lamson

HSCA speaks for itself Craig... and a note from Gary (Larry) Mack. I had to cut and paste it though... Ed, Both Marina and Marguerite testified to having destroyed a fourth BY pose the day after the assassination, and both confirmed to me in the late 70s/early 80s that they did, indeed, do just that. Might have been a hunting pic, from Russia, different gun etc etc etc...we don't know for sure do we. I think the inconsistency with what we do HAVE is enough to worry an WC supporters. So who "faked" the photos, as you suggest, eight months prior to the assassination? And why? Hesters were working on something, and it was not eight months prior. That fourth pose existed in March 1963 and Oswald knew all about it. Are you saying that HE faked his own picture? And then sent one of the poses to The Militant? And that the other three were faked after November 22? Sent how? Through the US mail? This is a Sylvia Weinstein reference ala Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK By Gus Russo http://books.google.com/books?id=9yTzkAUw6EEC&pg=PT1176&lpg=PT1176&dq=sylvia+weinstein+jfk&source=bl&ots=K8U-xGZC0f&sig=IDK7Q1J1rtfyoU62SvMHSaMugbs&hl=en&ei=A7ZnTuDOBYfKiALl75GGCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sylvia%20weinstein%20jfk&f=false or Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy By Vincent Bugliosi http://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&pg=PA685&lpg=PA685&dq=oswald+picture+militant&source=bl&ots=WlmMcDSZmp&sig=ozaQ4k-jjt0NTnZ_H-M7M5tNSMw&hl=en&ei=tLNnTuf5JPPWiAKvpJmECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=oswald%20picture%20militant&f=false Can you sort this out for me? Gary cc: Craig Lamson

© Evidence of retouching (422) Each of the backyard pictures, as well as the only original negative, was examined microscopically for evidence of retouching. No such evidence could 'be detected . Particular attention was given to the area to Oswald's left in CE 133-B, where it has been alleged that a retoucher painted on a montage but carelessly allowed the color material to spread onto the front of a nearby vertical post, thereby giving the appearance of an indentation on the post that does not appear in either of the other two backyard pictures. (181) (423) Close examination of the original print revealed that the apparent indentation is a shadow, most likely of a leaf or leaves . The straight edge of the post is still visible in this shaded area. This straight edge was detected and indicated by a computer programed to seek such edges. (See fig. IV-37, JFK exhibit F-198.) (182) (487) 15. Are the backgrounds and shadows identical on any of the three different views (CI:-133A, CI'.-13:3, and CE-1:1:3) . thereby suggesting that different figures have been superimposed on different prints of a single background photograph? (488) The speculation is either that someone started with a photograph of a backyard with no figure and added the three figures from other photographs, or that Oswald's head was added to three photographs of someone else standing in the backyard . The backgrounds are. not identical, thereby ruling out the possibility that figures were added to three prints of a single photograph of the backyard . The differences include changes in the convergence of vertical subject lines (the posts, the boards in the fence, and the building on the right) with changes of camera tilt, changes in the area of the background included in the three views, and slight changes in the positions of shadows of some branches and leaves. AND (510) The undersigned copied a photographic print with the Oswald camera, using a -F 4 diopter supplementary lens over the camera lens, to demonstrate that it is possible to make a copy negative that has characteristics of an original negative including edge markings, scratch patterns, variations in center to edge sharpness, pincushion distortion, and consistent grain patterns (fig. RIT 22-1 A and B ) . For this type of fakery to be successful, it would be necessary to use a large format camera with a good quality lens for the original photographs to avoid introducing graininess, scratches, unsharpness, or distortion at this stage. Also, any alterations would have to be made on large photographs so that retouching or discrepancies could be concealed. Furthermore, the Oswald camera would have to be available to the person making the fake photographs and it would be necessary to cal- 215 culate a combination of supplementary lens focal length and original print size to obtain an in-focus image of the desired size with the fixed-focus camera. (511) Clues that might uncover this type of fakery would include strong pincushion distortion caused by adding a supplementary lens, loss of ~,,radiation in highlight areas and loss of detail in shadow areas which typically occurs when copies are made, and possible detection of imperfect retouching or other alterations. Pincushion distortion was much more evident on the copy photograph made with the Oswald camera than on the original negative of Oswald or on other photographs made with the Oswald camera without the supplementary lens . Since there is no wide-angle effect when two-dimensional photographs are copied, to avoid detection of fakery, appropriate variations in the shape of Oswald's head would have to be incorporated in the original photographs. In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses marry technical problems, any one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination of the photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce the three backyard photographs of Oswald.

Two additional first. generation prints, one of 133-A and one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was among the police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the search of the Paine premises . (154) Nice of Dick Stovall to hang on to these till Roscoe's had surfaced. (379) The photographs show a slight variation in the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the prints and borders that were caused by artifacts of masking position . On the back of each is the small graphite mark characteristic of automatic printing machines. It indicates to an electric eye scanner where the long continuous roll of prints should be cut into individual snapshots. (See figs. IV-18, IV-19, JFK exhibits F-179 and F-182.) As most drugstore prints, these were apparently cropped slightly for aesthetic purposes by placing a white border around their periphery. Finally, the panel noted that CE 749, the negative to CE 133-B, contained small emulsion tears, which indicated that it had been abused in processing, as well as water spots indicative of improper washing or drying . Were they all "Drugstore" photos printed on an automatic printing machine. Do the emulsion tears and water spots account for the dog nose its shadow(piece of emulsion) and other anomalies?

Great questions Jim, and this shows the dance that was going on with the evidence.

Thanks for the dog nose pic Bernice. And thanks to Jack again. Looks like artifacts got left behind? Interesting shape of the dark 'dog nose' and the lighter one near it. Both appear triangular. If one "caused" the other is only a guess, but a possibility due to their shape. Then there is the dark streak and spots on the fence. These anomalies may be key to understanding how the pictures were made.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Neely_Street_-_p1 The backyard images... http://www.copweb.be/images/CE-133-all.jpg The middle pic was supposedly taken with Marina standing closer. Check the relationship of the gate and the stair post on the left you will see that nothing has moved. If Marina moved closer the post would move to the left in relation to the gate. In fact none of the relationships between objects in the background change - all the positions and angles remain exactly the same. What we have is two photos taken from exactly the same position and one has been cropped to give the appearance of the photographer having moved. This had to be done with a tripod. Also the Imperial could not zoom in. Ahhh Houston we have a problem....a parallax issue. In his HSCA testimony Jack stated the camera may have moved a fraction of an inch in the vertical plane (upward or downward) but no movement in the horizontal plane (side to side) between the three pictures. From: EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION BACKYARD PHOTOS EVIDENCE OR FAKERY PRESENTED BY RALPH THOMAS http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html The photographs were found at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, the home of the Paines. On two searches on the day of the assassination of this address, the Dallas police did not locate the photographs. However, another search was made the following day and it was this third search in which the Dallas police say they found the photos. But the two photos were never listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions. Neither was the black shirt and the black pants that Oswald had on in the photographs ever located. Officially, two photographs but only one negative were found. Yet, Dallas police Gus Rose says that there were also two negatives. Until 1967, these photos were the only ones known to be of the backyard pose. Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include: 1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position. 2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other. 3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again. 4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not. 5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby. 6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested. 7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short. 8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be. 9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph. 10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did. 11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt. 12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle. 13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range. 14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used. 15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment. During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study. The actual camera the alleged photographs were taken with was not found for several weeks but finally turned over by Robert Oswald, Oswald's brother. Oswald's brother said that he found the camera at the Paine home even though the Dallas police had searched the home several times for the camera. Robert said that the camera belonged to his brother Lee Oswald. This reflex camera was a very poor quality camera and Oswald was highly interested in photography. He owned several very expensive cameras and no one ever explained why he would use such a cheap camera for these photographs. The Warren Commission said that the photos were taken by Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, on March 31st, 1963 at the 214 W Neely address. The photos show a bright sunny day. But, a check on weather reports in the area that day reveal that it was cloudy and rainy all day. The Warren Commission determined that the photos where real and had FBI agent Lindal Shangfield testify before it. The agent brought with him a photograph that had duplicated lighting taken with the reflex camera that might have determined the problems of the shadows on the face. However, this photograph was a photograph of an FBI man with his head cut off. The FBI did state that the actual photographs were compared to the simulated photograph to determine if they came from the same reflex camera which they stated that they did. However, Jack White pointed out that this could have easily have been done by taking composite photographs of the scene using the reflex camera. In 1970, Dallas news reporter Jim Marrs was looking into the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester. The Hesters worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination. In 1970, the Hesters told Marrs that the FBI had color transparencies of the backyard photographs the night of the assassination and had one color transparency that had nobody in the picture. Not only is this highly suspicious, this was the night before the photographs where supposed to have been found in the first place. Margins of the pictured militant are not the same as the the militant in evidence. The margin should be approx. 1/4 inch. In the Oswald photo it measures .623 (over an half inch!!) Some question the definition of his shadow. Very sharp for being cast on uneven ground and across uncut grass. What is in the lower left corner by the post? Looks like a knitted blanket folded over and a black bag? Some question his disappearing elbow in #3 pic. Some question the shadows cast by the stair risers, being different angle (or should not be shadowed at all) compared to the "LHO" shadow on the ground, and thus are from different light source/times of day/etc. Some question how the de Mohrenschildt photo managed to have more picture around the border? I was at the HSCA offices the day the photo was discovered. Groden and I had the opportunity to handle and examine it carefully for about twenty minutes. Groden later made photocopies. At lunch he and I talked about how much BETTER QUALITY it was than the 133 pix. We did not pay much attention to the writing on the back. But we DID use a magnifying glass, and the type on the newspapers was very legible...could not have been shot by an Imperial Reflex. And it included extra material around the edges, which is impossible according to the official story. ~ Jack White http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV20ce133aDeMp150.jpg Jack White has analyzed the Oswald photos in great depth. White possesses expertise in original photographic evidence, unlike Farid, who only has studied digital photography. Thus White has identified dozens of instances in which the photos were faked. Farid has only discussed his analysis of the shadows cast by the nose and the body to conclude they were from the same general direction of light. That proves very little even if Farid's methods were legitimate, as all that would be needed to make a match according to Farid's analysis is that the photo of Oswald's head and the separate photo of the body of person substituting for Oswald be taken at 12:00 noon to 2:00 pm. But I don't think Farid's computer animation approach is even valid, because it would be easy to manipulate the results in an animation. Why not use an Oswald look-alike, with the same height, general facial features, etc., and then try to replicate the results in the photo? Because Farid couldn't reach the same conclusions that he could with manipulated animations. White has discovered loads of evidence establishing that the photos were fakes that Farid could not possibly refute, even if he had the required expertise (which he does not). White discovered, for example, that in two separate photos of Oswald, the "heads" of Oswald were identical! The photo forgers simply tilted the same image of Oswald's head for the second faked photo, and then added a slight touch up to one of the photos, in the corner of Oswald's mouth, to make them appear different. Farid wouldn't touch that incriminating evidence with a 10 foot pole. Finally, as you have discovered, Farid makes his living testifying for the FBI. He does not make his real money as a college teacher. Farid knows where his bread is buttered. For those who are interested in the truth, I've included a link that will summarize White's real analysis of the photos, and that provides additional links. Do not expect the news media to give you any information about the truth of the JFK assasination. They have been an intrinsic part of the coverup since November 22, 1963. If the news media were really interested in the truth, they would provide information about White's analysis as well as Farid's shoddy animations. But no, you only get Farid's phony side of the story. Source(s): http://newsblaze.com/story/2009050917020 Listen to Hany Farid here: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/media_player.aspx?id=67 The wristwatch seen on Oswald`s left arm in 133 B was never retrieved or positively identified as Oswald's. The Warren Commission main proof that the photos are genuine, is that the markings on the negatives were legitimately from the Imperial Reflex Camera. Jack White figured out how the conspirators pulled this off, they photographed the photograph with the Imperial Reflex Camera, so that the negative would have matching forensics to the camera! Ed

The other jacket. James Clark Larue found a jacket on Industrial under the Ft Worth Turnpike. What was its significance? Intelligence Report, by R. W. Westphal. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill listing names and addresses of employees of the Texas School Book Depository, page 3: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/35/3566-003.gif No description, just a 'jacket' found by Larue and given to Kaminski. Kaminski is Erich Kaminski a Lieutenant with Vice Section Special services Bureau...okay so you have Kaminski receiving a jacket and turning it over to Homicide and Robbery. Then what happened to it? It was put in the property room. And then what happened to it? "On November 22, 1963, his assignment was to handle a security detail on Main Street, in downtown Dallas . After the assassination of the President, he spent the afternoon at the Texas Book Depository Building, but arrived there after the escape of LEE HARVEY OSWALD . He was part of the security force at the Police Headquarters after OSWALD's arrest . On November 23, 1963,he was in the offices of the Special Services Bureau from 8 :00 AM to 6 :00 PM . He was not assigned to any security detail" http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1549.pdf No mention of receiving a found jacket. But we have the report about this jacket. Here is Detective F. M. Turner (who rode in the pilot car of the motorcade) giving a rebuff of the jackets importance to Belin!! Mr. Belin. All right, while you were there, did you learn that an officer had been shot? Mr. Turner. Well, I stayed down there for quite some time talking to these witnesses, and then I went back over to the School Book Depository Building to check and see if my partner was there. Mr. Senkel hadn't seen him in quite a while and didn't locate him. There was several officers over there, Special Service, still had the building secured, and you want this mentioned that coat business in there? Mr. Belin. Yes. Mr. Turner. The coat has no bearing on the case. Mr. Belin. You mean in your statement I have with reference to a coat being found on Industrial Street? Mr. Turner. Yes, sir; as far as I know, that still has no bearing in the case, but it was placed in the property room. Mr. Belin. You just found a coat somewhere? Mr. Turner. Well, a Mr. Kaminski from the police department handed me a coat when I went back over to the building, with a note of who had turned it into him, where it was found, and he had no idea whether it had any bearing on the case or not. Mr. Belin. Have you investigated? Mr. Turner. As far as I know, the coat does not have any bearing on the case. Mr. Belin. All right, go ahead. Mr. Turner. After I left there, I went back to the sheriff's office and I talked to the one lieutenant in our office then and found out that Mr. Senkel had gone back to our office, so he in turn, he told me I might as well come on up there, looked like things, about all I could down there. The best part is where Turner deflects the investigation of the jacket. What color of jacket was found on Industrial? Tan?

Scott, Ah good you know a new term now. Your mum is a good photog. Thanks for sharing. I'm liking these old pics. Ed

Hey nice pic Scott! Who was the shutter bug? Thanks Ed

Thanks Hugo! I have way more faith in you than Perry. Yeah Steve he seemed very nice, but so is a skunk...till you realize something smells(In Denmark~Shakespeare) Ed

Hey Scott, Maybe just give us the highlights and those parts underlined... Thanks, Ed

Years ago I was politely asking this guy, "Perry Vermeulen", for a copy of the ship log/passenger manifest of the Maasdam showing Oswald. He shined me on for weeks. He repeatedly said he would email me a copy. He continued making excuses why he couldn't like he was on a trip, must be a long trip as I'm still waiting to see it. Now I was not asking for it to see Oswald's name, I was looking for other names. Whom else was aboard, etc. I notice he uses crops of the pages with LHO and his ship cabin neighbor. Never going to get him to share it...Does anyone have a Maasdam passenger manifest besides this dead end?

New eyes are always welcomed. Good to have yours here Hugo.

That is actually a better scan than the one I linked to. Thanks Hugo! (Sorry Dave)

I looked it up and... Happy Birthday Bill! Keep up the good fight. Ed

Dr. Boswell’s 1/26/68 letter to Ramsey Clark: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=view_attachment&file_id=16580 (Thanks to Dave Curbow) "As you are aware, the autopsy findings in the case of the late President John F. Kennedy, including x-rays and photographs, have been the subject of continuing controversy and speculation. Dr. Humes and I, as the Pathologists concerned, have felt for some time that an impartial board of experts including pathologists and radiologists should examine the available material. If such a board were to be nominated in an attempt to resolve many of the allegations concerning the autopsy report, it might wish to question the autopsy participants before more time elapses and memory fades; therefore, it would be my hope that such a board would be convened at an early date. Dr. Humes and I would make ourselves available at the request of such a board. I hope that this letter will not be considered presumptuous, but this matter is of great concern to us, and I believe to the country as well. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated." Harold Weisberg. Post Mortem. Frederick, Maryland: 1975, p. 139. (First printing Was in 1969. See p. 574 for a copy of Boswell's letter.) 11 J. ARRB Testimony Thornton Boswell, College Park, Maryland, 2/26/96, p. 213. Noted Warren skeptic Harold Weisberg saw the signs of Boswell’s having been nudged more than thirty years ago. Commenting on Boswell’s letter, which he reproduced in his 1969 book Post Mortem, Weisberg wrote, “I am suggesting that Boswell’s letter was both inspired and prepared by the federal government.” “Strangely for a man with an office and a profession,” Weisberg reasoned, “[the letter] is typed and signed but on no letterhead, with no return address and, even more intriguing, on government-size paper, which is a half-inch smaller than standard.”[165] [it appears that after this episode Boswell became a Justice Department favorite. In JAMA, Boswell admitted that, “the US Justice Department … summoned me to New Orleans to refute Finck’s testimony, if necessary. It turned out it wasn’t necessary.”[166] Boswell’s New Orleans adventure is further explored below.] The man at Justice who was pulling Boswell’s strings was apparently no less than the Attorney General. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm Justice's calling Boswell, of all people, as a backstop would be baffling were it not for the fact that Boswell had already demonstrated his helpfulness to Carl Eardley the year before. On January 26, 1968, Boswell had written the Justice Department to request an independent reexamination of JFK's autopsy evidence.8 Prior to that moment, the only physicians who had ever reviewed JFK's autopsy photographs and X-rays were the same military men who had done the original autopsy. By 1968 reasonable doubts about the performance of JFK's autopsy had been raised by authors Josiah Thompson, Edward J. Epstein, Mark Lane and others. Boswell's letter set the wheels in motion toward the only reasonable response: an independent review by men outside the military. In answer, Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General, convened a civilian panel, the so-called "Clark Panel." But new information reveals that Boswell's effectual letter has a hidden history: it wasn't his idea to write it. Though his signature is affixed to the request, behind Boswell one can (again) make out the Justice Department's shadow. Under oath to the JFK Review Board, Boswell admitted, "I was asked by ... one of the attorneys for the Justice Department that I write them a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe, or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley."9 Noted Warren skeptic Harold Weisberg saw the signs of Boswell's having been nudged way back in 1969. "I am suggesting that Boswell's letter was both inspired and prepared by the federal government," Weisberg wrote. "Strangely for a man with an office and a profession," Weisberg reasoned, "[the letter] is typed and signed but on no letterhead, with no return address and, even more intriguing, on government-size paper, which is a half-inch smaller than standard."10 Boswell's help with the Clark Panel and the Shaw trial suggests that Boswell had become a Justice Department favorite. And there is new evidence to bolster that impression. When Martin Luther King was shot on April 4, 1968, Boswell testified that he got yet another call from Carl Eardley. "J," Eardley pled, "we got a problem down in Memphis ... Would you go down there and supervise the autopsy?"11 Apparently the Justice Department was looking for qualifications besides proper training and experience when it asked the expert in natural death to lend a hand unraveling the very unnatural death of the famed civil rights leader. Gary Aguilar Citations: 1 John Lattimer, MD has suggested that Drs. Humes and Boswell requested, and were discouraged from, seeking local, non-military experts. Lattimer does not identify who discouraged them. In Kennedy and Lincoln, Lattimer writes, "Commanders Humes and Boswell inquired as to whether or not any of their consultants from the medical examiner's office in Washington or Baltimore should be summoned, but this action was discouraged." In: John Lattimer. Kennedy and Lincoln. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980, p. 155. 2 Memo by Pierre Finck to Director, Air Force Institute of Pathology, dated 3/11/69, regarding subject, "Shaw Trial, New Orleans." 3 Memo by Pierre Finck to Director, Air Force Institute of Pathology, dated 3/11/69, regarding subject, "Shaw Trial, New Orleans." 4 ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park Maryland, 2/26/96, p. 211. 5 ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park Maryland, 2/26/96, p. 209. 6 Dennis Breo. "JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy". JAMA, May 27, 1992, v. 267:2802. 7 ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park Maryland, 2/26/96, p, 210. 8 Dr. Boswell's 1/26/68 letter to Ramsey Clark is reproduced in Harold Weisberg's book, Post Mortem, p. 574. 9 Deposition of J. Thornton Boswell by ARRB, 2/26/96, p. 10. (Note, Boswell also told this same story in the May 27, 1992 issue of JAMA. Op. cit.) 10 Harold Weisberg. Post Mortem. Frederick, Maryland: 1975, p. 139. (First printing was in 1969. See p. 574 for a copy of Boswell's letter.) 11 ARRB testimony J. Thornton Boswell, College Park Maryland, 2/26/96, p. 213.

John, FWIW Don Jeffries did a Amazon review of the book. Maybe he will be kind enough to scan the page for us. I messaged him about it, as I too want to see it, never having the opportunity before. Ed

Is it being contended that George Herbert Walker Bush was not in Tyler Texas giving a speech? A bit of investigating showed that GHWB was not in front of the TSBD at the time the picture purporting to be him was taken. Here is the LINK: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=55442&mesg_id=55654&page= I interviewed Aubrey Irby for his recollections of the 22nd November 63' and he confirmed what is quoted in Kitty Kelly's book "The Family." To quote from the book: "On November 22, 1963, George and Barbara headed for Tyler, Texas (population thirty-five thousand), where he was scheduled for a luncheon speech to the Kiwanis Club, a group of one hundred men, meeting at the Blackstone Hotel. "I remember it was a beautiful fall day," recalled Aubrey Irby, the former Kiwanis vice president. "George had just started to give his speech when Smitty, the head bellhop, tapped me on the shoulder to say that President Kennedy had been shot. I gave the news to the president of the club, Wendell Cherry, and he leaned over to tell George that wires from Dallas confirmed President Kennedy had been assassinated. "George stopped his speech and told the audience what had happened. 'In view of the President's death,' he said, 'I consider it inappropriate to continue with a political speech at this time. Thank you very much for your attention." Then he sat down. "I thought that was rather magnanimous of him to say and then to sit down, but I'm a Republican, of course, and I was all for George Bush. Kennedy, who was bigger than life then, represented extremely opposite views from Bush on everything." The luncheon meeting adjourned, and George hurried across the street to meet Barbara at the beauty salon for their scheduled flight to Dallas. Before leaving the city, George called the FBI in Houston. Files obtained under the Freedom of Information Act document George's 1:45 p.m. call to the Houston field office: "Bush stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent days . . . He stated that one James Milton Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston." The man George turned in was an unemployed twenty-four-year-old who had been honorably discharged from the Air Force upon the recommendation of a psychiatrist. He was also a John Bircher who had vigorously opposed George during Bush's campaign for GOP chairman of Harris County. During his interview with the FBI, Parrott said he was a member of the Texas Young Republicans and had been active in picketing members of the Kennedy administration but that he had not threatened the President's life. Years later, when he was running for President, George would claim that he never made the call. Documents were then produced that refreshed his memory. He also claimed that he did not remember where he was the day John F. Kennedy was killed -- "somewhere in Texas," he said. George Bush is possibly the only person on the planet who did not recall his whereabouts on that day, although his wife clearly remembered their being in Tyler. She said that at the time of the assassination she was writing a letter in the beauty salon and that they left shortly after hearing the news. . . . "The rumors are flying about that horrid assassin," Barbara wrote in her letter. "We are hoping that it is not some far right nut, but a 'commie' nut. You understand that we know they are both nuts, but just hope that it is not a Texan and not an American at all." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My interview with Aubrey Irby: Mr. Irby, who was club vice president, confirmed the luncheon was at the Blackstone Hotel in Tyler Texas on 11-22-63 and George Herbert Walker Bush was there to give a speech. During Bush's speech Smitty, a black gentleman, who was the head bellhop gave Irby the bad news about JFK's death. He in turn told the club president Wendell Cherry who interrupted Mr. Bush and whispered the report to him. At that time Mr. Bush thanked everyone and sat down. The luncheon meeting adjourned, and GWB left. He also confirmed the quote "I thought that was rather magnanimous of him to say and then to sit down, but I'm a Republican, of course, and I was all for George Bush. Kennedy, who was bigger than life then, represented extremely opposite views from Bush on everything." That was all he could confirm from that day and had no other recollections. (PS: He did confirm Barbara was at the hair salon across the street and George had to go retrieve her. ) For laughs Mr. Irby then told me about the time Ronald Reagan came to Tyler Texas, and he took some prized Bulls up the elevator to a suite in the Blackstone Hotel. This was before Reagan was even Governor. Then in 83'-84' Irby went to the Oval Office to meet the President Reagan. Irby was President of Kiwanis International by that time and when Reagan saw him he remembered the fun at the hotel by saying "He stayed where the bulls slept." Ed

Funny you mention that, I was showing his book NCTA to a friend just a day ago and his card dropped out of it... so I'll drop him a line. Naval Aviation Police Hat Shield: 2 3/8" badge, screw post bent, top nail bent over(prevents rotation), Aviator's wing was applied to the shield in the field.