Jean Ceulemans

Did the Dodd committee ever release any details on rifles and/or revolvers shipped on their instructions (in order to proof a point)?

IMO and speculating, the fact that no ammo was ordered could indicate that simply no ammo was needed. If it was an order to check out Kleins (relating to a Dodd experiment...), there would be no need for ammo as the gun would be sufficient as proof. ƁUT given that there is nothing that indicates (not that I know) that this purchase was indeed used by Dodd - months had passed since the purchase - it´s a dead end, again.. as so often in this case with an endless amount of mysteries...

Now, what makes Hidell interesting IMO: if LHO created this ID (not entirely effortless...), used it to order the rifle and revolver, used it in connection with the FPCC, etc. WHY o why would he keep it in his pocket the day he was said to have used that rifle and revolver... In my head anything related to Hidell... I would have burned....

Sorry, I can´t help it, whenever I see this picture it reminds me of... 😀 https://youtu.be/4iRs3wpdzr4?si=_S0Dc1oR0eJmizhY

Ok... now I just have to ask : what the heck is "turgid"??

There are so many questions that will never get an answer, crazy Even very basic stuff like: - why couldn´t DPD provide the WC with the negative to 133A ? Where was it, who lost it? - why wasn´t 133C Dees/White or 133C Stovall handed over to the WC (they only surfaced in the 1970´s)? They were handed out to officers, and they simply had at least a bunch of copies in their file https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337630/ Funny thing in the numbering... as there was a mistake.., kinda like they didn´t even see there were 3 different versions/poses... When I looked into this stuff, at a certain point I simply stopped..., my list with questions like the above was so long that it was getting frustrated. All very basic stuff they screwed up...

Haha, love it! I still have a long way to go in reading JFKA books, etc. But it seems to me there are not many books out there that include alternatives. I feel it here on the EF forum some times as well, some have the attitude of "my way or the highway", even refusing to read alternatives (by blocking certain users, etc.). I´m always thinking to myself that these guys are like preaching a religion on a secluded island, as if the rest doesn´t exist. IMO there should always be a minimum of respect for other theories...

That is clear, thank you.

That´s indeed an option, and it is actually confirmed by what Rachel Oswald once said, that someone had requested to take those pictures. That statement (in an interview) went largely unnoticed I think. It´s in one of the interviews I recently all posted. Rachel in 1995 : "For example, right before the shooting someone asked my mother to take a picture of Lee holding a rifle" Where would she get that? She could have heard it from Marina, don´t know.

Very interesting! Now I don´t know if Texas would be the best State for such a set-up? Unless things were pretty much the same in all States in 1963? To an outsider like me Texas is/was a little like the old Wild West on certain issues.. like guns. I´m probably wrong, so just asking. As the stuff came from Kleins Chicago, the ID would have to be checked in Texas?

Faking in analog photography isn't really that hard. Yes, it's technical and you need to have the know-how, but it is not hocus-pocus, and when you spent enough time doing it (getting the smallest of details right) it's going to be very hard for someone to discover it. Unless... he has some original negatives... I a way (... I know it's not the same) you could compare it to learning how the use a fairly basic program like Photoshop, the basics take a couple of hours maximum. If you want to take it to the next level, you spent more time. In the late 1970's in my early teens I learned to develop "standard" analog pictures in a couple of hours (a couple of afternoons), including a few basic trics of the trade (like improving pictures that were under- of over- exposed). Certain special stuff, timing issues, types of paper, spec's of certain films, etc that came all a little later. Within a couple of months B/W analog photography held little secrets to me. I don't really do it anymore, untill some time ago when I bought a Cuera like LHO's Russian camera and I just had to try it... I have a friend who still is into the old stuff, prepped a film that we needed, and we had some fun experimenting with that old camera. It did have some issues, but old camera's all have issues... If you know them (takes some time) you can get it right and fix them but I didn't spent enough time with it later on. Back to the BYP's, I think if you look at the picture in Groden's "The Killing of a President", p.168, bottom, you will see a "not-so-bad" fake. It's clearly based on one of the Oswald BYP's (see the details in the picture, the bush on the right, etc. If he had spend some more time on some of the details it would have been a lot better and harder to judge (based on the picture printed in the book that is...). Parts of the fence were simply duplicated, exposing repeating in small details, giving away it's a fake. Anyway, I only wanted to say: yes the BYP's could be fake, BUT you really need the original negatives to 100% proove that... UNLESS some clear errors were made in the faking (like in the Groden one). Even to 100% proove you have a first gen print, you would need the original negative. BUT not all first gen prints are the same... you have the negative, and let's say you have some pics on paper X from store A, later you go to another store and I'm sure the result will be a little different... even using the same original negative... as it depends on the settings of the machine, or how it's done when manually. A short time of more or less exposing to the sensitive paper will shows differences in contrast etccc I have been looking at a lot of BYP's and most of them are touched up in one way or another (and pictures in magazines, newspapers, books... are always adjusted/tuned to the spec's, printing capabilities, type of paper, ink, etcccccc). I know they showed some BYP's to experts in the 1970's etc, but they were not told the pictures they had gotten were x gen prints, probably taken of a negative of a ... etc who knows... If you want a "good" fake : make a "somewhat lesser quality" picture of a "very good fake work" and destroy all the rest... So, IF the BYP's are fake, why did "they" leave the negatives lying around..., I simply don't get that part... it doesn't make sense... unless the negatives are created post... oops...

And what caused a lot of extra problems IMO was DPD pretending to be Wallmart and started distributing the BYP´s like there was no tomorrow, handing them out (and perhaps even selling them) as if they were tourist pictures. This was happening within a day or so. And very likely destroying and/or losing one of the original negatives in the process. The screw-ups and mistakes (I could use other, harder words...) by DPD are countless, add things like the Dees/White BYP that turns up later... c´mon... How many of those guys got fired... ? Perhaps a few that didn´t want to go with the (IMO criminal in some cases) flow...

I remember reading about the agencies looking for another (or 2nd) stamping kit as there was something wrong (or missing) with the the one they had. I think it had to do with a different lettertype or something.

Some time ago I looked into the later "expert´s conclusions on the BYP´s". As NONE of them had access to the original negative(s), it was all just useless blablabla.... Unless you have a picture where a guy´s head is pasted upside down, you really can not make much of only a picture, but there are plenty of those around too.... I can tell you I was not happy seeing Groden introducing a fake without referring to it as such. Money makes the world go round, and a lot are willing to give it a spin.

If Marina signed it (I think she admitted to signing at least once), LHO was technically correct in his answer