David Von Pein

Bingo, Curtis. You are 100% correct. Also.... "Oswald consciously tried to distance himself from the murder weapon so much that he apparently even went to the following extreme: He and Marina and their daughter June lived at the apartment on Elsbeth Street in Dallas for exactly four months (November 3, 1962, to March 3, 1963), and then moved to the apartment on Neely Street for close to two months (March 3, 1963, to April 24, 1963). However, when he was asked to furnish all of his previous residences since his return from Russia, and the approximate time he lived at each, he gave all of them (including his residences in Fort Worth and New Orleans) with one notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the murder weapon in the backyard. He cleverly accounted for the close to two months at Neely by saying he lived seven months (not the actual four) at Elsbeth. And when Captain Fritz, during his interrogation of Oswald, asked Oswald about the Neely address, Oswald flat-out denied ever living there. All of this, of course, shows a consciousness of guilt on Oswald's part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 966 of "Reclaiming History"

Yes, it is. The two poses are nearly identical. CBS/Schiller did an excellent job of mimicking Oswald's stance and everything else associated with the famous backyard photo. The re-creation even nails the angled body shadow perfectly---right down to the exact slat on the back fence where the shadow of each man's head falls. The fourth slat from the left. Absolutely perfect....

What a crock of crackpottery you continue to post. The CBS/Schiller man has almost perfectly duplicated Oswald's posture. Very little difference whatsoever. You're seeing (and imagining) things---yet again. Nothing new there, of course. Another example of Bob P.'s vivid imagination working on all eight cylinders. Nice, Bobby.

What in the world is so impossible about the way Oswald is standing? I see nothing all that unusual about his pose here at all. Just because he's not standing rigid or ramrod straight up and down, you think his posture is physically impossible for a member of the human race? Silly. So, once again, we're treated to CTers seeing "impossible" things that are far from impossible. Well, that does it for me then. I'm throwing in the towel right now. Bob Prudhomme Jr. has declared one of the BY photos to be fake, so nothing more needs to be said about it. Robert Jr. has the final word. Let's stamp it "MARK VII" right now. Thanks so much, Bob. (And Bob Jr.)

Oh for Pete sake, Ray. You're trying to say that examining this man's posture in the picture below is something that can only be done in this new "electronic age" we live in? Get real. You're flying by the seat of your pants on this BYP thing, Ray. You can't prove the photos are fraudulent and you know it. Nor can any other CTer prove they're fake.

There's that word again --- "impossible". You have no idea that such a pose is "impossible", Ray. And it obviously wasn't "impossible", because we can see Oswald standing in such a posture in the photos. And the photos are verified as real by the person who took them --- Marina Oswald. Try again, Ray. The "impossible" thing is getting old. Yeah, right. Like the man's basic posture is something NOBODY could "examine" back in '63, right? So, again Ray, how were the fake photos made? Do you think a real person stood in the backyard or not? (Apparently not.) So they got a picture of an empty backyard and then they drew in an Oswald-like body and then pasted on a real Oswald head? Is that how it was done? And they wanted to make sure to leave you CT buffs lots of crumbs and they wanted to make it much more likely their fakery would be discovered, so they decided to fake THREE or FOUR separate pictures, even though they all show the very same thing ("Oswald" with guns). Right? And what about Marina saying she took the pictures of Lee while he was carrying guns and dressed all in black? All lies? At what point does this BYP insanity end, Ray?

Re: Waldman No. 10 -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-149.html

So, Ray, I guess this means you also think that NOBODY is really standing there in the Neely backyard, right? The ENTIRE BODY of the man has been drawn in or added to the Neely background. Is that it? And, for some silly reason, the photo fakers decided to draw in a man whose posture is IMPOSSIBLE (according to CTers anyway). Correct? And these same photo manipulators also thought it would be a really good idea to paint in a thumb on the fake "person" that was way too long. Right? (But what for, pray tell?) Those photo fakers were sure a bunch of screw-ups, weren't they? (Or was it just one goofy guy painting in all of the "impossible" things in the pics?)

I'm not convinced it is Oswald's thumb. But it might be (as I said before). But the things that CTers believe to be "impossible" are of no consequence whatsoever. And particularly when it comes to ANYTHING they declare as "impossible" regarding the JFK case. Because they are ALWAYS wrong about everything. It was impossible for Oswald to fire the rifle in XXX seconds... (Wrong.) It was impossible for Oswald to make it to the second floor in XXX seconds... (Wrong.) It was impossible for Oswald to have gotten to 10th St. in time... (Wrong.) It was impossible for a rear shot to result in JFK's head moving to the rear... (Wrong.) The Single-Bullet Theory is impossible... (Wrong.) The shadows in the BY photos are impossible... (Wrong. As I just proved above with the re-creation photo.) And on and on to "impossible" infinity. So when the all-knowing Bob Prudhomme tells me something is "impossible", forgive me for not bowing down and taking his word as Gospel.

Why did I even bother to ask? I knew what Bob's ridiculous answer was going to be. So now let's heap on still more plotters and cover-up operatives, Bob. What's the number up to nowadays? Has it reached 5 digits yet? Must be pert-near that.

Ian, Re: your "cheque" question (it was actually a money order, not a check).... I haven't the slightest idea.

What did I tell you, Bob? If you look long and hard enough, you're going to "find" 50 more weird things that don't look quite right to you. Why I am not the least bit surprised?

Well, Bob, shouldn't that tell you something right there? Or do you now want to say that the CBS/Schiller re-creation photo is a fake too? Via just a regular ol' "Google Image" search. Here are the search results.... https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+backyard+photo+re-creation&biw=1280&bih=590&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fHxwVdjTFILJsAXcrYPABg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ BTW, the man in the re-creation picture can also be seen in the 1967 CBS video linked below (in Part 1 of the 4-part series). However, it appears that the picture used in the CBS video is slightly different than the photo I posted in my earlier post.... dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

Sounds like a theory that's right up your alley, Ken. Go for it.

Ray, If the man in the re-creation photo were to slide his thumb down just a little more, the thumb would almost touch his fingertips too. (The thumb IS a movable object, you know.) And what about those so-called "fake" shadows that CTers love so much? Any comment on those?

What about this re-creation photo? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963....

Bob, I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit. I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is. But let me add this..... If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph. This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery". And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.) And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet).... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book.... "[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" And let me also ask you this, Bob Prudhomme.... Do you think that a REAL PERSON is standing there in the Neely Street backyard and was posing for a series of phony backyard pictures? As I speculated earlier, it's my guess now that you DON'T think the "person" with the weird (alleged) thumb is a real flesh-and-bone human being. Is that correct?

No need for me to put on a show, Kenny. Your current "Pretend All The Evidence Is Fake" act is the headliner around here. That show can't be topped---for laughs. Especially your latest act regarding the front-seat bullet fragments. I'd love to hear you present your Post #236 to a jury. The roars of laughter would be deafening.... "And so? No evidence they [CE567/569] were fired from that rifle. No evidence they were fired while JFK was in the limo. No evidence they were not planted there. How much more you need DVP? .... To put it plain and simple DVP, you got nothing. LOL....just a plain ole Nutter shilling for the WC. All smoke and mirrors, no substance." -- K. Drew The best part is this gem.... "No evidence they were fired while JFK was in the limo."

You can't get anything right, can you Ken? Even when I quote my statements back to you, you still get them wrong. My previous statement regarding your silly "handgun" post was perfectly stated. I said you said that "just maybe" JFK was shot with a handgun. Do try to keep up. .... "To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that." -- DVP

Now wait a second, Bob. Isn't the most popular theory for the "fake backyard photos" the one that has a REAL PERSON standing in the Neely backyard holding a rifle and that only the HEAD of Oswald was pasted onto this "other person's" body? So, if that's the theory, the Oswald stand-in would still have a THUMB on his left hand too. So the "stand-in" would be the "freak" with the weird thumb. Just HOW MANY things can you guys come up with that "don't quite look right" in the BY pictures? Is there any limit? So, Bob, I guess you think that NOBODY was really standing in the Neely backyard at all, is that right? And pretty much everything except the background was added into the picture artificially? Including the freakish left thumb that apparently belonged to NO flesh-and-blood person? Is that correct? And don't forget the alleged "impossible" leaning posture being exhibited by the "person" (or the drawn-in person) in the picture too. And the stubby fingers on the "person's" right hand too. Don't forget that. Plus the "impossible" shadows. And the cropped chin. Did I leave anything out? Keep looking at the pic below. I'm sure before the end of the day, you can add a dozen more things that you see in the photo that are "impossible". And keep ignoring Marina whatever you do. She has always said she took the backyard pictures. But she was probably just dreaming the whole thing. Right, Bob?

Watch the video on this page, Chuck. The Carcano was easily capable of firing all three shots in well under 6 or 7 seconds, with fairly good accuracy....as these riflemen demonstrated in 1967: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-499.html

The C2766 rifle that Klein's mailed to Oswald/(Hidell) has LHO's prints on it, David. Three prints, in fact. That's definitive proof that Oswald had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time. And since it's obvious that OSWALD had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time, then why would you think that OSWALD did not ORDER the weapon himself from Klein's (especially in light of all that paperwork that proves he DID order it)? Or are you going to argue that the three LHO prints were planted there too? (And, yes, I'm including the two trigger guard prints.) Good luck in pretending those three LHO prints are "tainted" and "worthless" too.

Looks like Ken is suffering from another bout of his "false memory" again. He doesn't seem to recall much of anything he has written--even stuff he wrote yesterday. Just a little more than 24 hours ago, Kenneth Drew said the following in this Education Forum post.... "Certainly could have been with a handgun." -- K. Drew My post in response to Ken's absurd "handgun" speculation is, therefore, a perfectly accurate summary of what Ken had said.... "To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that." -- DVP And that statement--all by itself--ranks as one of the dumbest statements ever written on any JFK forum since the invention of this great thing called "The Internet". Congrats. Take another look at CE567 and CE569 again, Kenneth. How do you think those two bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle managed to get into the front seat of the President's limousine? Just take a wild, off-the-wall guess. JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html I think you just might have topped yourself in the "Dumbest Statements" category, Ken. Nice job. A hat trick! Three incredibly dumb statements in just one single post. Not easy to accomplish, but Ken makes it look easy. Ken thinks the C2766 Carcano rifle can't be "associated" with the JFK shooting. Even though the following items exist in the evidence pile.... ...Three bullet shells from the C2766 rifle. ...Two large bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle. ...The stretcher bullet (CE399) from the C2766 rifle. (And as much as Ken and all other conspiracy theorists hate that CE399 bullet, it's still there in the JFK assassination evidence pile nonetheless. And it always will be.) ...And then there's the C2766 rifle itself, which I guess Ken wants to pretend really WASN'T found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building at all. Isn't it embarrassing to be THIS wrong about everything, Kenneth? I would think it would be.

Sorry, I can't see what you're seeing, Ken. I see no sign of the strap meeting up with the alleged "sling mount".

It wasn't. That's merely Unproven Conspiracy Myth #4,106. But I get a big kick out of the theory that has a group of assassins planning IN ADVANCE for a shot through the windshield. That's funnier than all these Jack Benny shows combined. JFK is riding in an OPEN car. His whole upper body and head are exposed to the assassins. So what do these brilliant plotters want to do? They want to arrange a shooting that REQUIRES them to shoot through the windshield glass! What's not to love about such idiotic assassination planning? There was no hole in the windshield at ANY time---period. Only a crack. No hole. Just like Robert Frazier said in his testimony. (Another rotten xxxx, Ken?)