John Butler

One of my contentions is that Harvey and Lee may have been at different places at different times, but they eventually were in the same place and same time. Japan, Philippines?, California, Russia, New Orleans, and Dallas. It is very difficult to identify in photos who is Harvey and who is Lee. I believe that Lee Oswald was removed from the film record except for just a few photos. Lee was removed or merged with Harvey Oswald in composite photos. Jack White did good work on trying to bring this to light. Many of the Harvey Oswald photos are composite photos or ones where a face mask is used to say this character is Harvey rather than Lee. With that said I won't stand very firm behind or defend strongly the relabeling of the following forum photo: I believe Harvey and Lee dressed alike in noticeable patterned shirts and wore their hair in the same style so that people would associate one with the other more readily. This kind of technique allowed both to walk around in the TSBD or other places and not be detected as frauds since they were fairly close in appearance. If Lee Oswald was in the Sniper's Nest he would have had to pass many on the way there. No witness has come forward and said there were two Oswalds there in the TSBD. I believe the voices of the two were different. There are several stories describing Oswald's character as gruff or shy mumbling something and then walking away rather than hold a conversation. Many believe Harvey Oswald's voice patterns were not southern, but more in tune with a slight northern or foreign accent, definitely not a product of New Orleans or Dallas. Can someone post a larger, clearer, photo of this, perhaps the original photo from which this is taken. My ability to research and find things on the net is limited. I never get what I am looking for just stuff in the general area. That would be the photo with Oswald with his shirt off.

Thanks Rick, I learn something new just about every day on the whole Oswald/Kennedy story. So, Lee Oswald is last seen at Nellis Air Base. I guess I am not going to get to gin up a story of Oswald and the UFOs. I find the following very interesting and maybe helpful in understanding the Oswald story. Area 51 military installation, Nevada, United States Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica See Article History Area 51, secret U.S. Air Force military installation located at Groom Lake in southern Nevada. It is administered by Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. The installation has been the focus of numerous conspiracies involving extraterrestrial life, though its only confirmed use is as a flight testing facility. U-2U-2, a U.S. high-altitude aircraft, c. 1957.Underwood Archives/Shutterstock.com What Is Known (and Not Known) About Area 51 Area 51 has spawned more conspiracy theories than perhaps any other military facility in the world. Here’s what we do (and… For years there was speculation about the installation, especially amid growing reports of UFO sightings in the vicinity. The site became known as Area 51, which was its designation on maps of the Atomic Energy Commission. Conspiracy theories gained support in the late 1980s, when a man alleging to have worked at the installation claimed that the government was examining recovered alien spacecraft. "In addition, Hansen later saw the man wearing a utility shirt with the surname "Harvey" stamped on it.114 Needless to say, Gerald Hansen was not interviewed by the Warren Commission, but now we understand that Lee Oswald may have been briefly assigned to one of the most closely guarded bases in the US after returning to El Toro on December 22. 58-31132133" from Harvey and Lee. The U2 was tested at Area 51 in 1957 and prior. Could it be that Oswald was assigned there to learn very secret things about the U2 and radar that he could use to bargain his way into the Soviet Union. It is a thought.

Lee Oswald and UFOs? From Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong: “Late December-Lee Oswald at the Lake Mead Base After Lee Oswald checked in at the large jet base at El Taro (NOT Santa Ana), there are indications he was immediately sent to the Lake Mead Marine base north of Las Vegas, Nevada. Gerald Hansen was stationed at the base in December, 1958 and told the FBI about a Marine that he believed was Lee Harvey Oswald. Prior to taking leave on December 26, 1958 Hanson witnessed an unusual incident during work. One of the supply clerks called out the name "Harvey" to a Marine who had the name "Benjamin" stencilled on his utility shirt. Curious as to why the clerk called the man "Harvey" when the name "Benjamin" was stencilled on his shirt, Hansen asked the supply clerk why he called the man by a different name. The supply clerk refused to answer and told Hansen to direct his question to Sergeant R. (Ronald) G. Ackerman. Sergeant Ackerman told Hansen that even though the name stencilled on the Marine's uniform was "Benjamin," he was using the name "Harvey." Akerman further explained that even though the man was using the name "Harvey," his real name was "Oswald" and he was from Texas. Hansen subsequently verified that the Marine was using the surname of "Harvey" when he heard the company commander, Captain Vernon S. Munsell, address the man as "Corporal Harvey." In addition, Hansen later saw the man wearing a utility shirt with the surname "Harvey" stamped on it.114 Needless to say, Gerald Hansen was not interviewed by the Warren Commission, but now we understand that Lee Oswald may have been briefly assigned to one of the most closely guarded bases in the US after returning to El Toro on December 22. 58-31132133 NOTE: The Lake Mead Base was a storage and transfer area for nuclear weapons which were tested at the Nevada Test Site. It is now known as Nellis Air Force Base Area II and is one of three Air Force nuclear storage areas in the United States. The base is on the northern outskirts of Las vegas, is visible from cars travelling on Interstate 15, and from aircraft approaching the Las vegas airport.” Isn’t Nellis Air Force Base Area 51? What was Lee Oswald doing there? Becoming part of the “UFO” plot to kill Kennedy? Did CIA agent Oswald meet Aliens? Was he influenced by Aliens? Did Aliens program Oswald to kill Kennedy? Can one build a ludicrous, but humorous Oswald and the Aliens theory? It could make as much sense as some of the things I have read. I’ve often thought that some of the Elsie Dorman films frames show round, shiny alien devices rather than water bubbles or marks. Hmmm? I wander what Jim Marrs would have thought?

Tried and convicted by a newspaper article on Nov. 23, 1963. No more need be said. Except maybe another article about his shooting and funeral.

Robert Prudhomme has provided valuable information on the scope and some of the problems and benefits with the scope mounted to the left of the rifle. He makes a very crucial point about Oswald could have used the M1 Garand rather than the faulty Carcano. I believe M1's were readily available in 1963 as the Army had switched to the M14 in I believe 1957. Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) This thread was begun on another forum and I am transferring the posts to here. ianlloyd wrote:Did its offset mounting make using the open sights a possibility? Looking at the scope, it looks to be mounted quite high above the weapon, presumably in order to allow operation of the bolt but also to allow the shells to eject without hitting the scope? Does this provide sufficient space beneath the scope to have used the iron sights instead? I've only shot air guns as a kid and used scopes on those sometimes and recall finding it difficult to re-acquire a target (obviously just to look at it after firing to see if I'd hit it). I usually removed the scope as I found it easier with just the iron sights, even more so if tracking a target. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Ian You bring up a very good point about scopes designed for air guns and low velocity .22 calibre rifles. The rifle scope mounted on the M91/38 6.5mm Carcano short rifle, allegedly owned by LHO, was an Ordnance Optics 4x18 scope. It was a very inexpensive scope made in Japan and was designed to be mounted on a .22 calibre rifle or an air powered pellet gun. Due to the low velocity of a .22 rifle, it is not a rifle typically used to make 100 metre shots, and target shooting at 25 metres is more in line with its capabilities. To better understand this scope, it is necessary to define the numbers assigned to it, 4x18. The number 4 tells us that this scope will magnify the size of anything viewed through it four times. The number 18 defines what is known as the "objective lens diameter" and is the diameter of the forward end of the scope that allows light in. The larger the diameter, the more light is allowed to enter the scope and the better defined the target is to the viewer. As stated, this scope was 18 mm in diameter. Scopes designed to shoot 100+ metres usually start at around 32 mm and go as high as 50 mm. A very important feature of a scope, and the cause of your problems in re-acquiring your target, is a thing known as "field of view". This is usually defined in hunting scopes as the width of the area visible through a scope at 100 metres. Quite simply, some "wide angle" scopes, such as the original Redfield Widefield scopes, made it much simpler to find what you were shooting at by giving you a wider view of what you were trying to look at. I bought a wide angle Bushnell scope for a rifle years ago simply because I could not track a moving deer through brush when viewing it in such a tiny field of view as was seen in the scope I replaced. Now, when you design a scope to shoot .22 calibre rifles at 25 metre targets, field of view no longer becomes a concern for the manufacturer. I remember shooting .22 rifles equipped with similar cheap scopes as a kid, and the field of view was ridiculously small, comparable to trying to find someone in a crowd by looking through a 1/2" tube. For those who believed Oswald used the open sights on 22/11/63, here is a good question. If Oswald practiced shooting this rifle as much as some claim he did, he would have noticed the inadequacies of the scope re: field of view immediately. Wouldn't it be likely that he would have removed the scope prior to bringing the rifle to the TSBD, if he knew he was going to be using the open sights? More to come...... Edited October 22, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) To better understand the difficulties of sidemounting a scope on a rifle, there are a few more things about rifle scopes you should know. Look carefully at the following two diagrams: These may look a bit complicated but are really quite simple. When a bullet leaves the muzzle of a rifle, the only force acting on it then is gravity, and it will begin falling to the earth. For this reason, to hit a target at 100 or 200 metres by aiming at it through a scope (or sights), it is necessary to raise the barrel up so the bullet will follow a parabolic curve to the target and impact the target on descent. The amount of elevation depends upon how "flat shooting" the rifle is. A rifle with a high muzzle velocity and a high ballistic coefficient will not require much elevation, while a low velocity round with a bullet possessing a low ballistic coefficient (the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38, for example) requires more elevation. Quite often, on a hunting rifle, the line of sight will be adjusted until the rifle is able to hit bullseyes at 200 metres. This does not mean the hunter is specifically looking for game at 200 metres, although his rifle is sighted in for that distance. The purpose of this is that his rifle, at 100 metres, will only be shooting an inch or two high at the top of the parabola and this can be easily compensated for, much easier than trying to hit a target at 200 metres with a rifle sighted in for 100 metres. The results can be seen in this chart. Note how quickly the bullet begins to drop. It should be noted that C2766 was an M91/38 short rifle, and that its rear sight was not adjustable, but fixed at 200 metres (219 yards). If C2766 was a high velocity flat shooting rifle, a bullet impacting the bullseye at 200 metres would only be an inch or so high at 100 metres. However, this was not the case with C2766, and the ballistics calculator we used in another thread shows that a Carcano 6.5mm bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps, impacting a bullseye at 200 metres, would be just over 7 inches high at 100 metres. This is a serious consideration for the "Oswald did it all with open sights" advocates. It is interesting to note, from the first two diagrams, that the bullet path will cross the line of sight just a few metres out from the muzzle, and again at the target. This actually means that a rifle sighted in to be accurate at 200 metres is also accurate at a few metres. Now, while the trajectory of a rifle seriously affects hitting the height of a target at different ranges, and this was the inspiration for built in rangefinders on hunting scopes, the advantage of mounting a scope (or open sights) directly above the barrel of a rifle is that the left-to-right (windage) of line of sight to bullet impact relationship does not vary with range. In other words, if you aim at bullseyes at 50 metres, 100 metres, 200 metres and 300 metres, you will see a corresponding drop of the impact point of the bullets as you go further out but, unless you are shooting in a crosswind, there will be no variation to left or right on the target. However, if you mount the scope on the side of the receiver, as on LHO's alleged rifle, you are no longer directly over the barrel. Even though it appears to be too small of a space to make much difference, the line of sight (from the scope) and the line of departure (bullet path) are now beginning from two different points, and the rifle can only be sighted in for windage to be accurate at one range and one range only; namely, the point at which these two lines converge. Any close shot made with this rifle will put the bullet to the right of the aimed at target, and any shot made past the convergent point will put the bullet to the left of the aimed at target. Years ago, a friend of mine owned a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action rifle. It had open sights and was a great deer rifle in brushy ground. For some odd reason, my friend decided one day he just had to have a scope on this rifle, even though he was a deadly shot with open sights. As with the Carcano, it was necessary for the gunsmith to side mount the scope on the 30-30, not because of interference with the action but because this repeating rifle ejected cartridges straight up from the receiver, and they would hit the scope. The gunsmith "boresighted" the scope after mounting it but, of course, it was still necessary to sight the rifle in at the range as boresighting only "gets you on the paper", as they say. It almost drove us insane trying to sight that rifle in so it would hit bullseyes at 100 metres. Every adjustment we made to elevation or windage seemed to throw us off somewhere else. It didn't help that the Model 94 is a very light rifle and likes to kick, and one is anticipating this with each shot. During this exercise, I tried a couple of shots with the open sights, and found having the scope right in your face made this an extremely awkward and uncomfortable thing to do. As I said before, those who think the inadequacies of the scope would have prompted LHO to use the open sights during the assassination are as much as saying LHO never practiced at a range with this rifle. If he had, he would have removed the scope long before he brought the rifle to Dealey Plaza. Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) In basic training in the USMC, Lee Harvey Oswald would have been issued a 30-06 calibre M1 Garand. This was an eight round, semi-automatic, "en bloc" clip fed rifle that was equipped with a type of iron sights known as a "peep sight". There is no evidence to show that Oswald, in basic training or later on, ever received any training in shooting and maintaining a scope mounted rifle. It is interesting to note the similarities between the 6.5mm Carcano and the M1 Garand. Both used an "en bloc" charger clip, six round for the Carcano and eight round for the Garand. The Carcano clip fell out of the bottom of the magazine when the last round was chambered and the Garand clip was ejected out the top of the magazine when the last round was fired. Neither of these rifles could have a scope mounted directly over the receiver. The bolt of the Carcano would have struck a scope in this position, and the Garand ejected its empty cartridges upwards (like the Winchester Model 94 I spoke of). In some cases, scopes were side mounted on the Garands on the left side of the receiver, and, in others, scopes were mounted ahead of the chamber and directly above the barrel, to overcome the problems I spoke of in my last post. Suffice it to say that shooting with a scope mounted ahead of the chamber would be awkward, at the least. Also, note the difference between these long range scopes and the pathetic .22 calibre scope mounted on Oswald's alleged rifle. As the M1 Garand is a very accurate fast shooting weapon and its peep sight makes target re-acquisition very easy following a shot being fired, I have often thought to myself that the Lone Nut story would have been much more believable if the rifle found on the 6th floor had been a Garand. This was, after all, the rifle Oswald had trained with, and its semi-automatic action would have allowed more than three shots to be fired in the time allotted. Here are a couple of Youtube videos that demonstrate how quickly an M1 Garand can be fired with accuracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5k8r2OrFEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF5CdczuMTA Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) From the Warren Commission testimony of FBI Special Agent Robert A. Frazier: "Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And I have the four targets we fired here. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554. Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds. The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point. Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point. These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle. Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots." For a firearms expert, Mr. Frazier has an odd way of describing things. For example, the shots were "gradually moving away from the point of impact." Unless there was some sort of magic at play here, I think I would have said they were moving away from the point of "aim", not impact. Speaking of magic, I do not think I have ever heard of a rifle scope that required a few shots being fired to allow it to "stabilize" itself. This would be akin to changing the TV channels with a remote control and then having to bang on the side of the TV until the channel changer responded. What would happen if you hit the TV one too many times? Would it go past the desired channel? If what Frazier says is true (and I think it is nonsense), each time the rifle scope is jarred, it will take several shots to "re-stabilize" it. Once again, we have the FBI relying heavily upon the ignorance not only of the WC but also of the American public. In fairness, though, it should be pointed out again that the 4 x 18 Ordnance Optic scope was designed to be used on pellet guns and .22 calibre rimfire rifles, and it has been reported by many rifle owners they do not stand up well to the jarring from larger calibre rifles. However, the tendency of successive shots to "walk away" from the point of aim is a common problem with rifles, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the rifle scope. In fact, I experienced this myself, and the cure was quite simple. As rifle stocks are made from wood, they are prone to absorbing moisture. If you live in a humid climate, such as the temperate rainforest I live in or the city of New Orleans, where LHO resided, this wood can be exposed to tremendous extremes of moisture. In my case, I would go from long hunts on foot in the rain to a nice warm house heated with firewood. I would wipe my rifle down, clean it and then hang it on the wall next to a wood fired heater. Suffice it to say, it only took a few cycles of this wet/dry before the wooden forestock of my rifle warped on me. It first became apparent when I could not hit what I was shooting at. I took the rifle to the range and found, at 100 metres, it was hitting, on the first shot, slightly high and to the right of the bullseye. Each successive shot hit higher and more to the right, until I was easily six inches from the bullseye. The barrels of most rifles "float" in their forestock, meaning that they are attached to the stock only at the chamber. This can be demonstrated by wrapping a piece of paper half round the barrel and sliding it between the barrel and the forestock. There should be no contact and the paper should pass easily between barrel and forestock, right up to the base of the barrel where it meets the chamber. If it does not, you have a problem that needs to be corrected. In the case of this rifle, I found, at the front end of the forestock, the forestock had warped and was pressing tightly against the lower left side of the barrel. Believe it or not, this small amount of pressure was enough to slightly bend the barrel upwards and to the right, making the first shot land high and to the right of the point of aim, and progressive shots hit higher and further to the right of the point of aim. When I fired the first shot, the barrel heated up, expanding the metal, and the increased pressure caused the barrel to bend more. Each successive shot would bend the barrel even more as the temperature of the barrel increased. The solution, of course, was simple. I removed the stock and sanded that part of the forestock that was contacting the barrel until I had re-established the necessary clearance, applied sealant to prevent it absorbing more moisture and re-assembled the rifle. Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

Chris, I don't agree with everything you say, its simply a matter of interpretation. But, on the whole you have done excellent work and have hit the nail on the head. You say "In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake." When I drew that line I indicated in was an arbitrary line. I wanted to show two things. Those are the tilt of the scope and the phoniness of the bolt handle. When you introduced the line from the end of the bolt to the beginning of the barrel I agreed that was a better way to look at it and have used that in other illustrations. IMO, not a mistake but a difference in interpretation. Good work on that better suggestion. You also said "Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork." I agree, but when I say such things I usually get beat up about it and have a tendency to shy away from that. You said, " but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo" Another piece of good work is mentioning the nub of the scope in certain versions of the BYP CE 133 A. The two photo cropped images are from the first page and Jim Hargrove. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the photos. The phoniness of the bolt handle shows that it is a LIfe BYP and is perhaps a different version of the CE 133 A photo. I think Jim said his photo came from the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, the Life BYP cover I have does show the "nub" clearly. There is a clear difference in Jim's crop and this one. Remember, Life magazine made adjustments to the photo. Or, this nub could be the reason that the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek decided to eliminate the scope in their version of the BYP CE 133 A. You said, " Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. " I have to disagree on this one. IMO, the bolt handle is also artwork because the tilt of the rifle in the BYP rifle is not enough to increase the size of the bolt roughly to twice its original size as shown in the CE 139 rifle crop. To get that bolt handle to that size one would have to twist the center of the rifle greater than the butt stock and front portion of the rifle. It is simply to long and not of the same appearance as other bolt handles on other bolt action rifles. The scope doesn't show that kind of tilt because it is still sitting to the left of the rifle and fairly well matches the way the scope was mounted.

The post I just made had this: "Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald." Which suggests the date for the Newsweek edition was March 2, 1964.

Isn't it strange that both the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek made the same kind of error in brushing out or, adjusting the contrast or using liquid chalk on the scope ending in its removal. Its as the nurse on Scrubs use to say, it's a co-winky-dink. And, a strange one at that leading to suspicion and paranoia. Josephs said "The "copy" negative for this image is what Newsweek and Life apparently received... A negative made from the DeMohrenschildt print I believe." I wonder how a "copy" negative of the DeMohrenschildt print was made available to Newsweek and Life from a print photo that wasn't found until February 1967? I found this background information informative help on the issue. From Kennedy and King: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:01 A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3 Written by Jeff Carter “In early 1964, the backyard photo identified as 133-A was sold and/or released to several newspapers and magazines, resulting in wide public dissemination, most notably on the cover of Life Magazine’s February 21 issue. The release of the photo was considered a serious breach of the Warren Commission’s confidentiality, and the FBI was tasked with investigating “how the press got hold of the photo.” The FBI responded energetically, focusing resources in numerous cities. Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald. An internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 is far less circumspect, stating: “Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.” The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, “made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.” Life Magazine negotiated a price of $5000 with Marina Oswald’s business agents for the publication rights to the photo, but the photo itself came from “an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department.” Life had an “original copy negative” of the photo, made in Dallas. (Shaneyfelt Exhibit 10)2” and, "133-A de Mohrenschildt The de Mohrenschildt backyard photo was apparently discovered in February 1967 by Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, inside the sleeve of a record album found at a Dallas storage unit the de Mohrenschildts had secured ahead of their move to Haiti in April 1963. The record album, an instructional Russian/English language LP, had been lent by Jeanne to Marina Oswald, and was found with similar albums inside a box which had been placed in the storage locker sometime after the de Mohrenschildt’s departure, perhaps through Everett Glover and Michael Paine. The photo was deemed a first generation print of 133-A (although some researchers believe the Oswald figure’s arms are held higher), with markedly higher detail and resolution compared to the originally discovered prints. On the back side of the photo are two inscriptions. One says “To my friend George from Lee Oswald 5/IV/63.” The other, written in darker ink, is Russian cyrillic translated as “hunter of fascists ha-ha-ha!!!” This second inscription appears to have been written over the top of other writing which had been erased. The HSCA commissioned a handwriting expert who determined that the first inscription matched Lee Oswald’s known handwriting. The second inscription was thought to have been written by Marina Oswald. The subject was broached during an interview, with the now Mrs Porter, on September 13, 1978: Mr. McDONALD ... do you recognize the handwriting? Mrs. PORTER. No, I don’t ... you have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after I examine it, I know it is not ... this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language.4 In his manuscript “I Am A Patsy”, George de Mohrenschildt described how he viewed the photo as a “gift from the grave” from Lee Oswald. If it was a “gift”, an assumption since the print’s origin and presence inside the record album remain mysterious, then, presuming the April 5 1963 inscription date correct, Oswald passed on an opportunity to present it directly when the de Mohrenschildts apparently paid a social visit the following weekend, what would turn out to be their last meeting." *** Josephs likes to bring up Mary Moorman and Jean Hill in disparagement. He gets highly offended whenever the names Hill and Moorman come up and this is not the first time he has posted his supposed rebuttal as an insult. That doesn't work as far as I am concerned. I generally ignore him on that and will continue to do so. That interpretation of the placement of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman is completely legitimate based upon the WC CE Hill #5. In which Jean Hill placed herself across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD on a map drawn by Arlen Specter. It is also based on the fraudulent nature of the Zapruder film. Arlen Specter then placed that drawing in a Top Secret status and it was not seen for years. Here's a question for Josephs. Why did Arlen Specter hide this information away by classifying it as Top Secret if he didn't consider it important and worth hiding? I had better be careful or Josephs will again accuse me of being a "cointelpro agent".

Don't know whether this is helpful or not: I adjusted the brightness and contrast on the right hand photo. There is an article on the internet that said the Detroit Free Press folks removed the scope with liquid chalk rather than adjusting the contrast, etc. Why would both magazines use the same procedure and do the same stupid thing to remove a scope? Why remove the scope at all? Why they would do that I don't have a clue? What's needed is the CE 133 A BYP photo from Newsweek for comparison. I don't see an area indicating the scope was removed. I don't see an area where liquid chalk was used. I do see what could be a portion of the scope mount indicating some medium was used to erase the scope. The Oswald figure's head does seem to be to big for his body. A very long time ago I learned the head/body ratio was six to one. In other words 6 feet for the body and 1 foot for the head to be adjusted for height. That has changed with modern measures and better statistics. The article on the internet I read about this seem to say the Detroit FP and Newsweek articles were in Feb., 1964,

Chris said, "I don't know what that light area is other than it being an artifact of the alteration they made to the stock. Once we find alterations like the Butt end of the stock the rest of the photo can't be trusted enough to evaluate what we see. That little 'reflection' I pointed to in my last post is not proof of anything either.The only conclusion I think I can make on it is the shirt is too dark to allow the dark scope to be visible. Marinas photos look correct to me. The left image of her is a tiny bit smaller than the other one and they are not aligned vertically." I agree one photo is a tad smaller than the other. But, that wasn't that important to me. It seemed there was something wrong with the left hand photo of Marina. I was trying to figure out if there were alterations. It appears there were none. Marina in the left hand photos has facial asymmetries as all people do. Maybe hers is a bit more noticeable than most. That's what I was trying to compare in the right hand photo. I agree. If a photo is altered it is not of any use in comparing to other photos. Quote

Deleted.

There must be something important in this book to make it so valuable, or something that needs to be kept from the public.

Here is a photo of Marina Oswald, "the KGB Princess as someone called her", that is not seen that often and is from Oswald's 201 file: At that time she was a nice looking young lady. IMO, well able to do her assigned tasks. But, at first glance at the left hand photo suggests photo altering. But, why would someone do that? None of her features seem to match in an even or exact manner. On a closer look her features such as eyes, ears, and nostrils are not exactly the same, but that could be due to just facial asymmetries. The right hand photo points out that these differences in Marina's features are most likely due to facial asymmetries, or a slight tilt of her head, and nothing else. As far as being "the KGB Princess", I think others have made a good case for that including I believe the FBI (but, who trusts them).

Chris, I'm not saying you are right, but you maybe right. It is hard to tell. I too, noticed what you are talking about, but didn't have the nerve or confidence to say anything about it. Those spots may very well be camera or film objects. You see the same kind of markings all over the photo. However, in the Detroit Free Press photo which is essentially the same photo allegedly from the same source you have this: There is something non-shirt on top of the rifle and I hesitate to say an invisible or barely visible (might be imagination) scope like object there. Changing the contrast and lightening the image doesn't do much for the idea that a scope is there, but there is a lighter colored object there that might be the scope mount, or simply due to printing, editing, or camera, or film defects. I'll be interested in hearing your take on this.

Jim, Chris Barstow makes other good points here. The "nub" is probably the reason the Life BYP scope is shorter and is perhaps the reason rather than an alteration. That leaves the size on the scope in the LIfe BYP something the author of the image did rather than Life or other magazine editors. And, he also makes this point about the alterations not being particularly logical . "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." It appears to be the nub of the matter.

Chris, That is a sensible interpretation. Great job.

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

After watching Bugiliosi in the so-called Mock Trial with Jerry Spence, I came to the very same conclusion about Bugiliosi and Manson and his 103 wins out of 104 trials that is being espoused by these authors.

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.

There is controversial evidence that Oswald bought the .38 and then others claim that he didn't. The Harvey and Lee site suggest Oswald was given the .38 with a defective firing pin by Officer Tippett. I've always favored Officer McDonald with a throw down piece and he shot at Oswald and the gun misfired. He reversed the story after failing and being knocked down by Oswald who ended up with the gun. Of course, that is just speculation with no evidence there. Oswald is later said to have claimed the gun at his questioning with the statement something like you know how boys are.

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.

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.

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.

Denny Zartman said: "It also brings up the question: why take a picture with it at all? Are there any other pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle? Was this something he was in the habit of doing, getting his picture taken with his firearms? And he couldn't have destroyed them all, only his own copies, since one was apparently in the possession of George de Mohrenschildt and one in an entirely different pose in the possession of Roscoe White. But the point still stands - why would he take a picture with the guns at all if he had any intention of committing the crime and trying to get away with it? " I have been going through Oswald's 201 photos and I can think of only one or two photos of him holding a rifle. As a marine he took dozens and dozens of military photos. He was not camera shy. I don't think this is Lee Oswald but, Robert. If it is Lee, this is a textbook picture on how to hold a rifle. He is holding it correctly and whether or not he could shoot it well is another matter. There is one other that I can't find at the moment showing Oswald in the barracks with an M-1. Denny also said, "This is a point I brought up in another thread recently. I believe it's an important and telling detail. I would imagine that anyone considering this crime would likely think there was a chance that he would have to shoot his way out of the building. That Oswald didn't take a handgun with him, and had to travel all the way home to pick one up, suggests that the need for a handgun was not felt until just before he went to pick it up. I interpret this as being consistent with a person in a panic situation, trying to adjust to unexpected events. Not someone whose plan is going according to plan." Was the pistol Oswald's or McDonald's. We only have someone else's word that he claimed the revolver was his. Zartmen and Barstow are making many good, I say many good points.

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.