Jean Ceulemans

Here you can see probably why 133C never made it to the WC "133C" was also numbered 46... auch.... That number was already assigned with the other 2 (133 A and 133B ) : 46 and 47 My guess is that "133C" was taken out very early thinking it was the same as one of the other 2, a double ? Adamcik marked them, but it was Rose and Stovall that "found" them, it's possible he didn't know there was a third (at that moment early on). This is also the reason why the Adamcik-affidavit - I did not find them but I did number them - was copied many many times... And the reason why the total number of pics has been changed....

Just some more info on who marked the original pictures and the inventory, a stack of 47 pictures were taken seperately, when the items were send to FBI (and back...) they were referred to as such. There's a lot more (Aff. from the officers etc), but this is just to say why there are not on the list of bulky items

Thanks for posting the link, indeed very informative !

Had to look for it, here's the specific part

As per the above, Studebaker admitted before the Hsca that in 1963 he made copies of the 3 different poses for his collegues. Why 133C never made it to the WC nobody knows... there were plenty of copies of it in Dallas..

Here's DPD making copies of a picture that was not retrieved so said untill Dees/White or Stovall... yeah right... They screwed things up, that's what happened, loosing stuff, using the original neg. X-times for stupid purposes (in doing so they likely ruined neg 133A and neg 133C in the process) Keystone cops if you ask me

Now, in trying to figure out what was found and what was lost... 1) at one point in the DPD archives were 2 re-prints of "position" 133 C 2) In the DPD archives were a number of re-enactment pictures in the style of 133-C, these had to be based on something, a negative or a pictures showing the same poistions of the rifle and the newspapers So, DPD must have had - from early on - at least : 2 original (and o/c different) negatives and 3 original (and o/c different) pictures OR 3 negatives and 2 pictures (original = let's say found at the Paine’s), displaying LHO in three different positions. Well, I haven't found them... B.t.w. when Dees/White was introduced in 1976 it was often presented as the first of this "LHO-position"… while there already was a negative or at least al print in the DPD files. Fun stuff... Somewhere in my files are a number of pages of documentation on what was written/stamped on the back of each of these found (if there was a copy available of the backside), the photo-lab marked these. A number of them probably were never marked, as I was told they were handing them out as souvenirs... you can't make this stuff up really...

Absolutely, and adding to that: the different poses, that's a lot more work, but also elevating the risk of making errors

Don't agree, in the 1960's one could reproduce photographs by making a picture of a picture. As soon as film became commercially available people started making pictures of pictures in order to reproduce them, especially old pictures made with glass-plate-negatives (they were long gone). My dad had some old family pictures reproduced by doing so, I still have those pictures (my dad was a photo-amateur, he had access to a friend's dark room). That's what dragged me into photography. And b.t.w. FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified to the same process : "and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera"

Some people used gossip to frame other. I was very disappointed to see letters like this from a certain person. It told me more about the person writing this garbage, than about Ruth/Michael. From : Poage Legislative Library - JFK - John Armstrong Collection, https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/

If the original stabilzed negatives (first process) have certain emulsion spots, all the pictures developped (2nd process) from those will also show these spots. But, it is also possible emulsion spots were created in the 2nd process (and as such not visible on their negatives). For forensic purposes one would never remove these spots (when duplicating pictures, etc)

Gil quote : "This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs." It's not strictly a matter of processing errors (dust in the camera can also cause emulsion spots, among a buch of other causes like using dirty water , a fast drying proces, spots can be on the emulsion side or the other side of a negative, etcccc). If the emulsion on the negative has these spots, the pictures developped from these will ofcourse also show them, unless they were removed (there are a number things one can do to remove them or cover them up). So... especially with the BYP pictures, it would be very unwise to remove the spots in developping the actual pictures, as they are proof that a certain picture was developped from a certain negative. They simply need to show the same spots.

Just found some more information on Tomasz (I had no idea where he was during WWII). Apparently he was the vice-minister for Poland (Polish government in excile, London, UK) After the war he came back to Belgium (he marries here in 1946, continous his studies,.. see above). He gained the Belgian nationality in 1957. I feel he was pretty much the opposite (in character, family life,...) of GDM... opposites attract I guess

That story was told (many years later) by the daughter of the arresting officer (Harbour or something was his name). Someone contacted Harbour's daughter (mail or email) and she said it. The story was published in one of the JFKA periodicals. Going by memory here, just remember reading the above (it was part of an article on "other Oswalds"). House was arrested by Harbour (?) and later interviewed by the Secret Service. But I don't think any of the official documents say something about him having dynamite with him.

Never mind the red marking (I did that when I was looking for a confirmation of GDM contacting Moore about LHO, this was it....) Here it's interesting to see what GDM says about Marina and Oswald GDM has made conflicting statements wether or not he had personally seen any violence between them himself

The :xxx marking (?) behind his name changes a couple of times. I'm totally ignorant of the meaning...

As I understand it SA James W. Wood was a Dalles FBI Agent, not ? In stead of having the LA Office do the investigation he must have went to LA and take care of things himself ? Was this a normal procedure ? Just asking, because in other cases one usually (?) sees local agents handling the file in loco B.t.w., what does :mjg stand for ? PS : the investigation (on LHO's alleged mail-order revolver) was 99% based on Michaelis providing the documents and explanations (Wood really shouldn't have gone to LA... , unless he went there for another reason, I don't know).

Most people wouldn´t know how to tell a real from a fake ID. How often do we take a good look at one ? Oswald´s fakes were terrible (the "brush in can" cap he used on the vacc card was a nice improvisation):

@James DiEugenio It's confusing who did what first... There was the report dated 11/30/1963 by SA James Wood (= CE3088), next the SS/Protective Research was informed and they stated said Rose was to be contacted (again ?) by LA cfr. "undevelopped leads", but that was already done, not ? In the end Michaelis provides the REA doc, but there it pretty much stops when Michaelis provided the REA doc (I'm still looking so...). Now, ALL information and docs on the sale and shipping was handed to the FBI by Mr. Michaelis, Heinz W. (see WC Records, Key persons, file containing his questioning by BALL)

Stash and Sadness, the people you see in the vid are not actually singing, they are members of other bands (you can find the real Stash musicians performing this sons in other vids)

Every now and then you have these covers that are better than the original... Triggerfinger normally is into rather odd experimental rock (...), so this really was a big surprise in 2012 !

In the past I used Picturetrail a lot (don't know if they are still active, it used to be free of charge). Since my (Belgian) provider introduced a cloud service I use that, I think most provider give that service.

Gil, why do you have that BYP-picture-without-LHO rerferred to as a Jack White photograph ? I have the same picture in my documentation but I documented it as being from Groden. It is in Grodens book and he lists it as being from his personnal archive, no mention of Jack White.

Any idea why we can not use a photo-host, plenty of those around to choose from (lately these are cloud-services, often they will show the link to copy and paste on forums) ? One only has to post the link here to show the picture (costs zero bandwith to the EF) ? I have tried using it here, but it didn't work, strange. Must be some setting that disables those I guess. Forums with limited BW use those a lot, works fine in the others forums I was a member of.

Sandy, just asking, has anyone ever asked the provider about that 3 MB space/user ? Many members are having problems with that. Because by today's standards that 3 MB is really really low, looks like a standard that was calculated long ago (IMO). I know the budget is limited, I understand that. The 3MB/user is just to asure one doesn't exceed the total BW. One should look at the total available and divided by the number of users. Most providers give that information on how much BW is used/month, don't know about this one. Another option is to allow direct-linking; post only a link to a picture, the picture is shown here but is not taking up space Or use Photoshop (or any other photo-editing app/program) to reduce the file size of your pictures, it will increase the amount of pictures you can post by a significant factor, if you do it right you will not loose quality (especially when posting documents). Often I see hughe files for no reason... I know this is somewhat off-topic, but considering Joseph Backes' remarks this could help