Jeff Carter
-
Posts
874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jeff Carter
-
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Are those two other sources, O'Leary and Fritz in your article? Where could it have come from, if not from the Paines?
Yes, the sources appear in Part Four of the backyard photo article, but I should say that John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" was the book which highlighted this information in the first place.
I speculate in the article that the BYP in possession of the Dallas police on the Friday night was actually the third pose 133-C (which didn't surface publicly until 1975). This is based on the use of that pose for the recreation photos taken the week following. Where it came from is unknown, but I believe the source would be considered controversial and so it was effectively disappeared. My #1 unanswered question regarding this is whether the 133-C photo came to the Dallas police in the drugstore print format of the other two photos, or in another printed format.
-
Paul T - "The vain hope that some people have that everything about a person should or could be found inside WC testimony is always ludicrous."
And yet soon after typing this you are on another thread claiming that Marina Oswald's WC testimony is the "core" of the case and should be considered of utmost value and relevancy.
-
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Jeff:
What do you make of Mike Paine's statement to Liebeler that he saw the BYP on the evening of the 22nd? (2H402)
And further, that he recognized the Neely Street address by the small clapboard? Yet, I think the photo was taken in the back, right? And there was no indication in his testimony about his meeting with Oswald then that they went to the back.
If Oswald and Paine wandered out to the backyard, then Paine’s ID of the Neely St house would have likely been based on the stair structure which is the prominent architectural element. What’s odd regarding the comment about the clapboard is that it is really the least prominent structural feature in the BYPs, but also - how many of us can recall exact detail of exterior siding after visiting a house one time only more than seven months previously? Paine specifically told the WC that he retained detailed recollection of the April 1963 meeting, and his memory was much less exacting regarding the more recent encounters which occurred that autumn. That raises questions which were not asked.Liebeler was fishing for other information when Michael Paine mentioned being shown a BYP on the evening of Nov 22, so he either missed the substance of the statement or didn’t realize its import. It is really one of the “mistakes” in the Warren Commission’s record, as there is no way to square the presence of a BYP at DPD that evening with the “discovery” of the photos the next day. At least two others - reporter Jerry O’Leary and Captain Fritz - confirmed that a BYP was in possession of the Dallas police before they were found. In light of that, it’s important to recall that the announcement of the “discovery” of the photos - along with the mail order rifle form - was presented to the media as a major breakthrough by Chief Curry early on Saturday evening.
Officially, other than Liebeler’s mistake, the possession of a BYP by the authorities many hours before their discovery was effectively disappeared from the record. The HSCA should have clarified this, and actually had opportunity to do so during their interview with RL Studebaker, who had worked in the DPD’s photo lab and was present the assassination weekend and following. The lack of curiosity by the HSCA’s representatives is striking. Despite expending considerable resources investigating the authenticity of the BYP, the HSCA failed to address basic questions such as how the police came to possess a BYP by Friday night, and where the third photo, recently unearthed and apparently unknown until then, came from.
-
Paul. this phone call was discussed in detail on this Forum just a few months ago, a discussion to which you participated. In light of that, your misdirected paraphrase of the call and claim that a “dishonest person” added words which were never said, has no basis against the easy-to-consult original record. Ruth Paine’s stated opinion recorded 52 years after the fact may be of contextual interest but does not replace this record.
As well, the idea that Oswald showed Michael Paine a backyard photo in April 1963 does not correspond to the record. Michael Paine himself only began to make this claim in 1993 (to author Gus Russo) during the concerted effort to debunk Oliver Stone’s JFK film. Michael Paine’s Warren Commission testimony goes into great detail (several pages of testimony) twice; over his April 1963 visit to the Neely Street house to pick up the Oswalds, and then again describing the rolled up blanket on the floor of the garage at Ruth’s house in the Fall of 1963. In both instances, Paine’s testimony would amount to perjury and possibly indicate collusion if he had indeed been shown such photo by Oswald in April 1963. In fact, Paine testifies to the WC he was presented with a backyard photo by the Dallas police at their headquarters on the evening on Nov 22 - some 15-18 hours before such photos were said to be officially found.
I don’t believe either Paines were involved with an assassination plot per se, but they both were quick to provide assistance to the government in establishing the developing lone nut scenario, starting on the evening of Nov 24/63 in an interview with a local Dallas television station. Although they both offered an analysis of Oswald as an embittered loser who sought personal aggrandizement by entering the history books through killing a president, they were never pressed on what exactly would make them think that and nothing in their collected testimonies supports or provides reason for such a conclusion.
That the Paines were committed to supporting the official story and had official sanction in such effort is underlined by experiences described by Vincent Salandria:
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/ThePainesRoleInHistory.html -
As Russell noted in his book, in January 1964 a Secret Service officer interviewed Marina for two hours on the subject "Richard Case Nagell".
see Commission Document 379, p6
-
52 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
Steve, Marina's admitting such a serious act no matter by what means says so much about her state of mind with Lee, at least in the Spring of 1963.
Knowing more about this admission and action by Marina is very important.
Surprised this part of her story has received so little study.
I've read much of Marina's testimony both in the WC hearings and the HSCA.
She contradicts herself so much. He relationship with Lee was so complicated.
I honestly believe however, that Marina felt relief when Lee Oswald was killed.
In another testimony statement Marina says of Lee " He was a sick man."
The craziness and fear and unhappiness and unstability and arguments she went through with Lee was finally over.
She also soon found herself on the receiving end of more donated monies that she could have never imagined married to Lee. Beyond her wildest dreams. Just one contract signing with Life brought her $20,000 minus her lawyer/managers cut. That was separate from the tens of thousands she received from concerned American citizens.
Life was much better for Marina after Lee's death than before.
I also never remember seeing her cry after Lee was killed with one exception being at his funeral.
Marina and Lee's more innocent life ended when they arrived in the U.S. and the reality of poverty hit them hard.
hi Joe
The operative description with Marina Oswald is "contradictory". She presented a hand-written autobiography of her relationship with Lee Oswald to the Warren Commission (CE993). It mentions little of the presumed beatings, arguments, suicide attempts etc, and instead portrays Oswald as a gentle soul who loved classical music. So which side of the contradiction to believe? I don't think anything she said can be taken literally.
Here is the translation of CE993:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=610&tab=page
-
DeMohrenschildt, acting on a request, befriended the Oswalds and helped them in a few circumstances (i.e. arranging Marina's dental work and trying to find Lee employment related to industrial security), may have been acting with other motives (i.e. working to separate the couple), and ultimately his brief relationship with the Oswalds was the ruin of him (publicity tied to the assassination damaged the work he was doing in Haiti and his expected payout did not happen). There's definitely more than meets the eye, but the deMohrenschildt's were gone from the scene by the time the Oswald set-up had begun (in my opinion).
As a surmise, deMohrenschildt probably knew enough to make an informed guess as to who set Lee up, and the inscribed photo was placed with their possessions to serve as a sort of warning. It is interesting that the response to discovering the photo in 1967 was to arrange a dinner with the Paines, who they barely knew.
-
From what I've been able to determine, Gopadze's work was focussed on Marina, lasted about a week, was critical in assuring her cooperation, and then he drops out of the story.
-
Sorry, this should work. scroll down to footnote 4
About that deMohrenschildt photo: by the time of the HSCA, George deMohrenschildt was experiencing money problems and it would appear he thought the inscribed photo might be valuable and therefore was claiming exclusive right to the photo by attaching a "copyright." But, as you deduce, there was no actual legal basis for his claim of copyright. He made have had some rights to control or receive payment for distribution of at least the backside of the photo, but that would be based on possession and not as the "author".
The deMohrenschildt photo was determined to have been made directly from the negative of BYP 133A (which was said to have been discovered with Oswald's effects and was in possession of the Dallas police by the afternoon of Nov 23). The print was larger and contained much more detail than the corresponding "drugstore print" originally discovered. Whoever created this print had access to a higher end darkroom apparatus - possibly Oswald at J-C-S or at the Dallas police's photo lab. How the print ended up with the deMohrenschildt's LP records has never been determined. This box of LPs should have been searched by the FBI when it became apparent in 1964 that it had been with the Oswalds for some months in 1963, but it wasn't (incidentally, Ruth Paine indirectly handled those LP records, had access to the deMohrenschildt's storage locker after Glover left, could write in Russian, and was familiar with Marina's turns of phrase).
-
Marina Oswald most probably was not responsible for the inscription on the back of the deMohrenschildt BYP. There is another handwritten document attributed to her which features the phrase “ha-ha” and the writing is obviously different - as she had suggested during a testimony (see footnote 4 here for a visual comparison https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3). However, Marina did have a habit of punctuating sentences or comments with that “ha-ha” phrase, suggesting that whoever wrote the “hunter of fascists” inscription was aware of that tendency.
-
The photograph said to have been destroyed by Marina and/or Marguerite Oswald the night of or the next day following the assassination, was not necessarily a backyard photo. All that can really be said is that it apparently portrayed Oswald holding a firearm, and such photo may have originated in Russia or earlier in Texas with his brother.
Marina turned from being an uncooperative witness to a cooperative witness during questioning run by Leon Gopadze, a Russian-speaking Secret Service agent who had flown in from D.C. Gopadze was accompanied in his interview by Peter Gregory. It is Gopadze who had the previous day introduced the idea that life could turn out harshly for a woman in Marina’s position (widowed and without means), and that potential troubles could be mitigated by cooperating with agents of the US government. It is Gopadze who, during the interview accompanied by Gregory, asks what appears a pointed question referring to an “Inter Club” in Leningrad. This may refer to Marina’s rumoured activity in some sort of honey-pot operation before she became associated with Oswald. It is shortly after this question that Marina begins confirming things she till then denied, such as knowledge of the backyard photos. (CE 1792. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=440&tab=page)
-
5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
Douglas,
Thanks for posting this.
It will be interesting to see what "But ... But ... but ... this must be a CIA/Deep State forgery, because as we all know, Vladimir Putin is a very, very nice man who has been pushed to the brink by NATO/George Soros/The Clinton Foundation!" forum members will say about it.
If anything.
-- Tommy
I would comment, but in light of today’s indictments and being Canadian, I fear any critical commentary might place me in legal jeopardy for sowing discord in your fragile fragile country.
-
3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
Jeff,
With all due respect, did you garner "the real scoop" from Putin's slick mouthpiece, RT?
The Nation?
Have you read this article, written in response to the latter?
-- Tommy
The Hill article engages in some of the micro-analysis tendencies critiqued by Cliff Varnell. A conclusion that hacking or uploading information at high rates of speed is “not impossible” does not in turn prove that hacking occurred in the first place. (this type of argument has often been employed in network JFK documentaries, as elements of the SBT or the rapid fire of the Mannlicher Carcano are analyzed, shown to be not impossible, so therefore Oswald did it). Just as the SBT is vitiated by the low back wound, the not impossible upload speed is beside the point as the verifiable trail of the alleged hack should be sitting with the NSA all this time but has not been produced. The upload speed is a secondary issue, and was introduced as a supporting argument. The Hill’s critique treats it as a foundational argument.The Hill article also supports its position by stating: “The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow…” This is a reference to the declassified document from January 2017, the one which consists of opinions from “handpicked agents” which cannot be factually established. This is how “received wisdom” is perpetuated from incomplete feedback loops.
Cambridge Analytica demonstrates the urgent need for media literacy and critical thinking skills curricula in public education programs. The alleged links of the company to Russia are highly tenuous.
-
Tommy - sorry for being erudite.
I believe Wm Binney made the point that the fingerprints of any hacking could be identified by the NSA, as was the case a few years ago when the Chinese government was busted for hacking attempts against US gov’t computers. There was no dispute in that case, unlike this scenario. Here, the NSA has either been inexplicably sitting on evidence or has no evidence. Also, Scottish diplomat Craig Murray was indirectly involved with the DNC emails and Wikileaks, and he has been adamant that it was a leak not a hack. Murray and Binney are straight-shooters and credible sources.
Otherwise, your questions veer to the “when did you stop beating your wife” side of the ledger and are best left alone.
-
One of the lessons from the JFK case is the need to identify politicized intelligence, which has been a damaging feature of the American system for some time - i.e. Iraqi WMD, Team B in the 1970s, the various reports emanating from Mexico City regarding Oswald’s alleged meetings and public threat-making, etc. Russiagate, in my opinion, is a subsection of a broader “Russian threat” concept which really gained traction during the 2014 events in Ukraine - which, if analyzed objectively, demonstrates both provocation and extreme deceit on behalf of the NATO alliance. The purpose appears to be linked to justifying expensive arms programs, including a multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapon revamp. This threat enhancement was exactly the intent of Team B back in the 1970s. Most of the intelligence developed by Team B was later shown to be BS, but it helped justify the Reagan arms buildup.
The old Roman adage comes into play here: who is guarding the guards? When a report is sold as the absolute judgment of the entire intelligence community and then through gradual quiet retractions revealed to be simply the opinions of “hand-picked” agents - even as the report is used to ignite a media firestorm and generate hostile diplomatic manoeuvres - then there is a distinct whiff of deliberate manipulation in the air. And, since at least 2002, the mainstream media is joined at the hip with these dark arts, and could well be said to be co-conspirators (just as they manipulated the public over the Warren Report). For example, consult the New York Times coverage of the release of the unclassified Russian meddling document I shared.The reporters aren’t stupid and presumably read it, but report the findings as “conclusions” and do not mention the critical page 13 qualifications at all. Just a few weeks ago the Times described Russian hacking/meddling as “objective reality”, linking to precisely that document as their proof. There have been no public admissions or confessions, and the intelligence from outside the country is less than it again seems. (Or may be compromised as well - remember that, if the CIA’s Mexico office had their way with their Oswald stories, it would all have been “corroborated” by Mexican authorities, and remember that lies from the Brits helped cement the WMD story in 2002).
That said, I too prefer facts to unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Like a lifeboat in a xxxxstorm.
-
I agree with Lawrence, and suspect the initiator of this thread just enjoys needling certain people.
There is a sort of distant relevancy though.Q 1) What is your theory as to how we ended up with an anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" of VladimirVladimirovich Putin for President?
A noticeable trend across much of the West in 2016 was electoral success by candidates perceived to be outside the prevailing establishment. Trump’s victory in the Republican primary was fully in keeping with that trend, and arguably the federal election to some extent as well. Clinton was a quintessential establishment candidate with huge negative ratings to boot.
Q 2) Do you agree with our intelligence services that Kremlin operatives Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0 (I should add Julian Assange, too, but I don't want to be overly "sarcastic") not only hacked DNC's and Podesta's and RNC's e-mails, but parceled out during the campaign only e-mails from the first two of those organizations, and only those e-mails which were perceived by many as being damaging to Hillary Clinton?
The intelligence services haven’t actually made any conclusions with which to agree or disagree with.
The intelligence community’s assessment, often referred as representing the views of all 17 US intelligence agencies, was “drafted and coordinated” by three agencies - CIA, FBI, and NSA. Further clarification revealed the assessment was more accurately described as drafted by a few “handpicked” individuals from those three agencies. The assessment features the following information: “Judgments are not intended to imply we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” This means the assessment represents simply the opinions of handpicked agents, opinions which are not necessarily factual. And although the agents from the CIA and FBI expressed “high confidence” in their opinions, the report goes on to say: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”
Here is the document, and the above quotes can be found on page 13:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdfTo my knowledge, actual facts about purported “Russian hacking” or other election meddling have not yet been conclusively established and the much referred intelligence assessment makes no claim to accuracy. So there is no basis to claim “our intelligence services” have made any conclusions, despite what the CIA, New York Times, MSNBC, Tommy
or anyone else might say.
Aren’t we aware from the JFK case of parsed language and fake news? Or the preference to consult original documentation rather than rely on received wisdom?
-
hi Chris
they are describing running the newly processed film on an “analyst projector”. These were common in film labs to allow a quick look at recently developed films to identify any flaws that may have occurred - which in most cases meant prints struck from the negative but also, as here, developed positive films (which had no negative). These projectors sent the film through the gate in a way which minimized contact so as to not introduce scratches or wear. I believe they were variable speed, so not limited to 4x speed. Analyst projectors could also easily move back and forth from forward to reverse. But yes, 4x means 96 frames per second, which means the assassination sequence would have passed through very rapidly. I wonder, once the motorcade appeared, if the projectionist didn’t slow it down closer to 24 frames. The responses from those there certainly suggest that - but unfortunately Chamberlain and the rest were never asked the precise questions which might clarify.
The description of the film as “needle sharp”, “clear”, and “beautiful” echo what Josiah Thompson would say when he looked at Life’s “original” a few years later.
-
An explanation for why frame z-133 is not washed out similar to Z-001 would reside in the spring mechanism powering the camera: the play at the very top of the wind (assuming Zapruder had fully wound the camera to start) exposes the initial frames for longer period of time than restarting the camera a little deeper into the unwinding process. Such that the taught spring holds its tension during the duration of the pause between stopping and starting, and so is up-to-speed almost immediately. Z-133 is a little brighter than the following frames, which is consistent with that thought.
Not 100% on this explanation. It is something that could be tested.
-
While yes the Chicago Secret Service write that the alleged Hidell money order was found in Kansas City, they are mistaken and seem to have associated the confirmation a money order had been located with their knowledge the search for the money order was taking place in Kansas City. The alleged money order was instead found in Washington. But the Chicago report does confirm that most everyone thought it would be located in Kansas City. John Armstrong was right to point that out.
Here is the report by the Secret Service in Washington, which covers that side of the story.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=118&tab=pageCuriously, Holmes is not mentioned. The liaison in Texas, who supplied the money order information and requested the search, is said to be Postal Inspector Stevens from the Fort Worth Postal Inspection Service. Was Holmes' “boss” the inspector in Fort Worth, not in Washington?
-
The process of changing frame-rate speed while a motion-picture camera is in operation is known as “ramping”. This refers to a necessary gradualism in the transition from one rate to another. So to theoretically propose that the Zapruder camera switched from “run” to “slow motion” during the filming of the Z-film, the math must take the “ramping” into account.
i.e. if, for example, the button was pushed to slow motion at, say, frame 150 - what would not happen is the following: frames 1-149 recorded at a rate of 16fps (16fps manufacturer’s rate); frames 150 - onward recorded at a rate of 48fps. There would necessarily be a period of transition before the 48fps speed was reached (one second or two seconds, or some fraction thereof… not sure). So, for example, frames 150-180 would represent a transition period (this is an example, not scientific exactness), and frame 181 onwards would represent a rate of 48fps. As I’ve mentioned before - any sudden immediate change in film speed would result in in the film snapping apart (if changed to a higher speed) or jamming up within the camera (if changed to a slower speed).
The change in shutter speed must also be accounted for. At 16fps, the exposure time for each frame is 1/32 of a second. At 48fps it is 1/96 of a second. At the lower rate of speed, each frame is exposed for a period 3 times longer than the higher frame rate. The shutter adjustment cannot occur automatically in the space of 1/48 or even 1/16 of a second (it would "ramp" as well). Therefore the difference in exposure at the point of a theoretical sudden immediate film speed change would be visible. Nothing like that is seen in the Z-film.
My other caution in assuming the Z-film was at least partially filmed at the slow-motion speed, is that not one of the persons who saw the film on the day or over the weekend have ever suggested the images played out in slow-motion, though it would have been an obvious and pertinent observation.
-
On 2018-01-21 at 3:51 AM, Steve Thomas said:
On December 3, 1968 the FBI interviewed a George Bloodworth, who was a Warrant Officer Candidate in the U.S. Army Helicopter School in Mineral Wells, Texas. He met George Bouhe in the apartment of Alexander Kleinlerer. Bloodworth had formerly been in the Marines and had been stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia. He was very security conscious. Kleinlerer left the apartment to buy some food at a delicatessan, and Bloodworth and Bouhe got to talking. While they were talking, Bloodworth got the impresion that Bouhe was “one of us”, meaning an Army Intelligence Agent.
Alexander Kleinerer featured in the "What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?" thread from last year. Kleinerer was the only witness to claim to have personally viewed Oswald physically abuse Marina. Kleinerer also appears in a few FBI memos which are concerned with possible Jack Ruby associations with Import/Export businesses. Notable in those memos was a mis-spelling of Kleinerer's name as "Kleinlerer" - which is the exact same mis-spelling as appears here in 1968.
Actually, now relooking at the paperwork, it seems that the surname "Kleinlerer" is correct."Kleinlerer" is used for his affidavit to the Warren Commission.
"Kleinerer" is mistakenly spelled in several testimonies of White Russians and in at least one FBI memorandum.
Still, this info from 1968 confirms him as part of the Dallas area White Russian/intelligence milieu, and imho his claim to have witnessed a coercive situation between Lee and Marina is suspect.
-
20 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:
But as always, this is imposing 54 years of post-assassination hindsight on what conspiracy theorists think "should have occurred" in a perfect world. To the extent LHO was being monitored at the time the rifle was delivered, it would have been because he had been a defector to the USSR and had now returned with a Russian wife. It would not have been because anyone suspected he was violent or a potential assassin. So a Klein's Sporting Goods box addressed to "A. Hidell" arrives in a very busy post office, some clerk follows the procedure described by Holmes and puts a card in box 2915, and another clerk hands the box to "Hidell." Your #'s 1 and 2 strike me as "highly likely." In regard to #1, even if there were active interest, there would not necessarily have been such interest in a box from Klein's Sporting Goods addressed to A. Hidell. In regard to #2, I would amend "screwed up" to "followed the standard procedure described by Holmes." Again, with 54 years of post-assassination hindsight, it is easy to think everything associated with LHO should have set off alarms and that there must be a sinister explanation if a 60" box from Klein's Sporting Goods did not, but in reality at the time the rifle was delivered LHO was viewed as just a 23-year-old goofball who had quixotically defected to the USSR and come crawling back. The level of official interest that you are imputing to the Post Office and FBI with the benefit of post-assassination hindsight simply didn't exist.
It is not hindsight. The record from 1962-63 shows the FBI had extensive sources within the Post Office. Surveillance on Oswald and Marina (PO Box 2915) would occur because of the Soviet/ left wing activity associated with the mailbox, not because of suspicion of a "violent or a potential assassin." The future assassination does not come into play.
Chapters 14-16 of Newman's "Oswald and the CIA" touches on a number of the issues associated with surveillance of Oswald and the US Postal service:
"The early 1960s were tense years in the US-Soviet Cold War, and the Soviet Embassy in Washington was enemy territory as far as the FBI and CIA were concerned. That embassy would have been among the highest priority targets of the American intelligence community, and the embassy's mail would have been carefully watched - especially mail to and from Soviet citizens in America."
Again: December 31, 1962 Marina writes to the Soviet Embassy and includes new mailing address PO Box 2915, Dallas.
-
"In these circumstances, it is difficult for me to see as suspicious the fact that some informant in the Dallas post office didn't immediately scream "Lee Harvey Oswald just received a rifle!"
The issue isn't exactly that. What the record indicates is that the US Post Office had a relationship with the FBI, and post office informants were a common source of information for the bureau's agents.
That Oswald subscribed to left/communist literature and Soviet magazines would have/should have created attention to his P.O. Box 2915 address, especially in conservative Dallas. That this post office box was also referred to in a communication from Marina Oswald to the Soviet Embassy should also have triggered attention (Hoover testified that everything mailed to that Embassy was opened and read ahead of delivery).
It seems either 1) there was no active interest in a Soviet/communist linked PO Box 2) a postal employee screwed up and missed the rifle delivery and the new name (Hidell) associated with a Soviet connected PO Box 3) activity with PO Box 2915 was routinely watched but this information was not shared with the Warren Commission, and Hidell/rifle either did not trigger investigation or such investigation was buried 4) a rifle was never actually delivered to PO 2915
In my opinion, #1 & 2 are highly unlikely.
-
To emphasize the visibility of Oswald's Dallas postal box, Marina listed P.O. Box 2915 as her new mailing address in a letter to the Soviet Embassy December 31, 1962.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=513&tab=page
I believe Hosty would claim that a source inside the Dallas Post office helped him locate the Oswalds on Neely Street. There wasn't a change-of address form created for this address that could be accessed, but Marina did map it out in a letter to Ruth Paine dated March 4, 1963. Otherwise hard to determine how informant inside Post Office could have that information:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=107&tab=page
Michael Paine dies at 89
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The DeMohrenschildt version features higher resolution and is not cropped on the sides (i.e. it was created directly from the negative). Wherever it came from, it was not the Dallas Police photo lab, as the equipment which created it is higher quality than what they possessed. It is very tempting to propose that Oswald created this print at J-C-S, and certainly the HSCA’s photo panel’s report guides the reader to presume that as well. Oswald did create a few (innocuous) things for personal use there, but that he printed (or even created) the BYP at J-C-S needs to be considered in light of the workspace being open plan - that is, there really wasn’t a room he could hide away in, so any work on such photos would be in potential view of other employees. The HSCA panel notes some printing flaws are visible on the DeMohrenschildt version, which suggests the fixing process for the print might have been rushed. It is possible that Oswald (or a confederate) processed the photos via the commercial drugstore process, and then Oswald took a negative into work and created the print now known as the DeMohrenschildt version.
Michael Paine’s late claim to have been shown a BYP neatly fits into the latter possibility, as the print he described was larger than the small drugstore prints. Paine’s embellishment that Oswald seemed to be proud of the photo also dovetails nicely with the Warren Commission’s supposition of its purpose (Oswald’s self-image). So it is easy to assume Oswald created the print as a farewell gift to George DeMohrenschildt. Case Closed!
However, as can be effectively argued, Paine was not shown a Backyard photo during that April visit. There are other logical issues: why would Oswald go through the trouble of creating a print, signing it to his friend, and then forget to actually give it to him soon after when the DeMohrenschildt’s dropped over to say goodbye? And what, presumedly months later, would make Oswald assume the language records Jeanne DeMohrenschildt passed on to Marina would actually make their way back, someday, to the DeMohrenschildt’s? (thinking that it was Oswald who placed the photo there). In 1967, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt was actually surprised to see the records with their belongings, according to her husband’s account. In other words she didn’t expect to see them again, and if that's not the case and they were just on loan why weren’t they returned during the goodbye at Neely Street? It is assumed these records travelled to New Orleans and back, so did Oswald in September tell Ruth Paine that they should be delivered to the DeMohrenschildt storage locker? There is no indication of that, nor is there any indication Oswald even knew there was a storage locker. From the record, it was actually entirely Michael Paine’s initiative to deliver the records to the storage locker.
(And then of course there’s this one: why did Oswald permit a cache of English-Russian language tutoring records to be in his house for months when the story was he was adamantly opposed to Marina learning English?)
Hi Tom - the negative for 133-A is in the Archives. It was the negative for 133-B (and 133-C for that matter) which is missing.