The Backyard Photos

[J. Raymond Carroll]

DUPE

Edited August 6, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

after "betraying" his country, giving away radar secrets at the height of the cold war."

There is Not A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald gave away radar secrets. You just made that up , You xxxx!

In this testosterone-filled, male-dominated forum, we are all very lucky to have Kathy Beckett as a voice of reason and moderation.

So I am grateful that Kathy has taken the trouble to contact me personally to point out that I am violating forum rules when I call Mr. Morrow a xxxx, on the occasion of Morrow's FALSE accusation that Lee Oswald sold radar secrets to the Soviets.

It is a HISTORICAL FACT that both the US and the Russian governments have confirmed -- repeatedly -- that Lee Oswald NEVER sold or gave away radar secrets to the Soviets. But if Mr. Morrow chooses to believe things that are obviously not true, that is his right and privilege. People have been believing things that are not true since the beginning of time, and no doubt the trend will continue.

So when I suggested earlier that Mr. Morrow was perpetrating a BIG LIE, I should have qualified that by saying that, if Morrow ACTUALLY BELIEVES such foolish nonsense, then he is not -- strictly speaking -- a xxxx, and I owe him an apology, which I hereby humbly tender.

Thank you Kathy Beckett, for taking the time and trouble to set me straight.

[Michael Hogan]

after "betraying" his country, giving away radar secrets at the height of the cold war."

There is Not A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald gave away radar secrets. You just made that up , You xxxx!

In this testosterone-filled, male-dominated forum, we are all very lucky to have Kathy Beckett as a voice of reason and moderation.

So I am grateful that Kathy has taken the trouble to contact me personally to point out that I am violating forum rules when I call Mr. Morrow a xxxx, on the occasion of Morrow's FALSE accusation that Lee Oswald sold radar secrets to the Soviets.

It is a HISTORICAL FACT that both the US and the Russian governments have confirmed -- repeatedly -- that Lee Oswald NEVER sold or gave away radar secrets to the Soviets. But if Mr. Morrow chooses to believe things that are obviously not true, that is his right and privilege. People have been believing things that are not true since the beginning of time, and no doubt the trend will continue.

So when I suggested earlier that Mr. Morrow was perpetrating a BIG LIE, I should have qualified that by saying that, if Morrow ACTUALLY BELIEVES such foolish nonsense, then he is not -- strictly speaking -- a xxxx, and I owe him an apology, which I hereby humbly tender.

Thank you Kathy Beckett, for taking the time and trouble to set me straight.

So humble. And sincere, I'm sure.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So humble. And sincere, I'm sure.

The humor is obviously beyond your capacity, Mr. Hogan.

And no doubt I am not the only one who is NOT SURPRISED!

[Len Colby]

Its not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met. Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c )

It has to relate a "material fact" which is defined as "a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)". Thus you have to offer a scenario in which a judge concluded that whether or not an embassy official attended would be likely to alter the outcome of a court case.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 07 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact>.

Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally unavailable. If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.

Not if he refused to testify (and was not ordered by a court to do so) and he might not back your source.

Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHOs wedding reinforce your belief he was some sort of agent? Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing

??? You previously claimed that State did not deny sending an offical to the weedding!

"The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

I though the justification was they did not learn about it till after the fact, please trya nd keep your story straight

"... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions... "

That is totally circular

What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above? What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may.

Nice excuse for not backing your claims. I called it "wild speculation" because you failed to offer any evidence.

The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part?

OK then provide your citations.

Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

I'll do a forum search and get back to you.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

It's not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met. Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c )

It has to relate a "material fact" which is defined as "a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)". Thus you have to offer a scenario in which a judge concluded that whether or not an embassy official attended would be likely to alter the outcome of a court case.

Len, which part of "the first two are a given" do you not understand?

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 07 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.re...m/browse/fact>.

Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable". If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.

Not if he refused to testify (and was not ordered by a court to do so) and he might not back your source.

Let's get back to the original question, since my answer seems to confuse you: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable". The legal system itself will determine his "legal" availability.

Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO's wedding "reinforce" your belief he was some sort of agent? Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing

??? You previously claimed that State did not deny sending an offical to the weedding!

I did not.

"The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

I though the justification was they did not learn about it till after the fact, please trya nd keep your story straight

It is perfectly straight. Oswald got married. Officially no US Embassy representative there. Officially Embassy does not even find out until some time later when Oswald mentions his wedding in passing in a letter to the embassy. Later an exchange student named Kirsch gets married. His marriage is attended by other students, including Loren Graham and his wife AND an embassy officially. Said embassy official mentions in passing to the Grahams that he had recently attended a wedding of another American named Oswald in Minsk. The Grahams thought no more of it until recalling the incident at the time of the assassination. They placed no significance on it however, due to having no in-depth knowledge of the alleged assassin. It was not until many years later when Graham recalled the incident during a converation with Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, that he became aware that it may have some significance because PJM told him that officially Oswald had no contact with any American officials outside the doors of the embassy. Got it now?

"... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions... "

That is totally circular

No. Arguing with you is circular. Since the USG has officially denied that Oswald had any contact with any US official outrside the doors of the embassy, how are questions NOT raised if it now turns out an embassy official was at his wedding?

What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above? What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may.

Nice excuse for not backing your claims. I called it "wild speculation" because you failed to offer any evidence.

Uh uh. You have pre-judged. You asked what evidence I had to support my "wild speculation" thus suggesting it is "wild speculation" REGARDLESS of any supporting evidence I may have.

You would have a point if you had said, "if you do not have any supporting evidence, I can only view your statement as wild speculation - and depending on the quality of any evidence you do, I may still feel it is highly speculative, if not wild."

The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part?

OK then provide your citations.

You disqualify yourself from being granted any such request. Prove you have a legitimate interest in letting the evidence fall where it may. and I will reconsider.

Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

I'll do a forum search and get back to you.

Knock yourself out

[Len Colby]

LEN:It's not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met.

GREG: Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c )

LEN: It has to relate a "material fact" which is defined as "a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)". Thus you have to offer a scenario in which a judge concluded that whether or not an embassy official attended would be likely to alter the outcome of a court case.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 07 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.re...m/browse/fact>.

GREG: Len, which part of "the first two are a given" do you not understand?

LEN:Just because you say something is given doesnt make it so. I suspect the editors of one of the leading American legal English dictionaries know more about such matters than you do.

LEN: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable".

GREG: If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.

LEN: Not if he refused to testify (and was not ordered by a court to do so) and he might not back your source.

GREG: Let's get back to the original question, since my answer seems to confuse you: Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally "unavailable". The legal system itself will determine his "legal" availability.

LEN:If he was identified and was still alive and 1) agreed to testify or 2) refused to testify and was not ordered by a court order to do so your sources testimony would not be allowed. I am not sure what would happen if he could not be identified the law does not specify if hearsay would be allowed (or not) in such circumstances. So your claim your sources testimony would be admissible was false, it would more accurate to say it might be admissible under certain circumstances.

LEN: Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO's wedding "reinforce" your belief he was some sort of agent?

GREG:Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing

LEN:??? You previously claimed that State did not deny sending an offical to the weedding!

GREG:I did not.

LEN:I can understand you misunderstanding what you read; it happens to all of us, but misremembering what YOU wrote a few days ago is quite odd. I asked you, …why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding? to which you replied, Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this.

GREG: "The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc"

LEN: I though the justification was they did not learn about it till after the fact, please trya nd keep your story straight

GREG:It is perfectly straight. Oswald got married. Officially no US Embassy representative there. Officially Embassy does not even find out until some time later when Oswald mentions his wedding in passing in a letter to the embassy. Later an exchange student named Kirsch gets married. His marriage is attended by other students, including Loren Graham and his wife AND an embassy officially. Said embassy official mentions in passing to the Grahams that he had recently attended a wedding of another American named Oswald in Minsk. The Grahams thought no more of it until recalling the incident at the time of the assassination. They placed no significance on it however, due to having no in-depth knowledge of the alleged assassin. It was not until many years later when Graham recalled the incident during a converation with Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, that he became aware that it may have some significance because PJM told him that officially Oswald had no contact with any American officials outside the doors of the embassy. Got it now?

LEN:Until a few days ago you claimed they did not directly deny this, so lets go back to my earlier question, why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding?.

GREG:"... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions... "

LEN: That is totally circular

GREG: No. Arguing with you is circular. Since the USG has officially denied that Oswald had any contact with any US official outrside the doors of the embassy, how are questions NOT raised if it now turns out an embassy official was at his wedding?

LEN: Yes them lying about attending the wedding would raise questions but it would not be evidence he was a spy.

LEN: What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above?

GREG:What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may.

LEN: Nice excuse for not backing your claims. I called it "wild speculation" because you failed to offer any evidence.

GREG:Uh uh. You have pre-judged. You asked what evidence I had to support my "wild speculation" thus suggesting it is "wild speculation" REGARDLESS of any supporting evidence I may have.

You would have a point if you had said, "if you do not have any supporting evidence, I can only view your statement as wild speculation - and depending on the quality of any evidence you do, I may still feel it is highly speculative, if not wild."

LEN:I assumed that it was "wild speculation" because you failed to provide any evidence. You making excuses instead of providing citations reinforces that suspicion.

GREG:The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part?

LEN:OK then provide your citations.

GREG:You disqualify yourself from being granted any such request. Prove you have a legitimate interest in letting the evidence fall where it may. and I will reconsider.

LEN: Cute beautiful excuse for not providing the citations you claim to have.

GREG: Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

LEN: I'll do a forum search and get back to you.

GREG:Knock yourself out

LEN: Before this thread you made the only post on this forum with the keywords keenan and redskin the relevant portion reads:

* Around this same time-frame, Richard Snyder was acting as a spotter at Harvard for the Soviet-Russian Division within the Directorate of Plans of the CIA -- recruiting students from the Russian Research Center for potential travel to Russia as "Redskin" operatives. One such recruit was Edward L Keenan who went to Russia to study at the Leningrad University under the new Student Exchange agreement. Paying his way was CIA money filtered through a Ford Foundation Fellowship. In July '59, Snyder became First Consul at the US Embassy in Moscow. Keenan also arrived in the USSR that year - as would Lee Harvey Oswald. Redskin was designed to utilize "legal travelers" to Soviet Bloc countries to provide support for operations "Red Sox" & "Red Cap".

You did not provide any citations.

There was only one relevant hit from your site:

Edward L Keenan was present when Oswald attempted renunciation of citizenship in Richard Snyder's office of the US embassy in Moscow. Keenan was a CIA agent who had been recruited by Snyder into OPERATION REDSKIN [Lancer NID presentation, 2009].

So if you have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. You did not due so on this or your forum and only did so in your Lancer NID presentation, 2009 is it available online? If not can you post (or perhaps just the relevant portion?

Edited August 9, 2010 by Len Colby

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ah! What do (provably fake) photos of the man alleged to have assassinated JFK mean? That is the question?

In the first instance,

They show a man holding communist newspapers (which implies he is a communist sympathizer), holding an obscure

WWII weapon (which was alleged to have been used to kill JFK) and a belt and revolver (which was also alleged

to have been used to take down Officer J.D. Tippit). So on initial consideration, they implicate Lee Oswald.

Upon further consideration,

They show a figure with a block-chin (which was not Oswald's more pointed chin, which had a cleft), with an

insert-line between the chin and the lower lip (indicating the photo has been altered), where the fingertips

of his right had are cut off. So upon further consideration, internal features indicate the photo is faked.

With additional investigation,

It turns out the the weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the President (because they were high-

velocity and the weapon is not), that the revolver cannot have been the Tippit murder weapon (where casings

of two makes from automatics were found at the scene) and that the newspapers are antithetical in their views.

All of which implies that,

As the man accused of the crime observed at the time, the photo shows his head pasted on someone else's body,

which would be proven with time, as has indeed turned out to be the case, including Jack's use of the papers

as an internal ruler to prove that the subject is too short to be Oswald or the papers were inserted too large.

So what does this mean?

The meaning of these photos (since there were four in all) is that an obvious attempt was made to frame Lee

Oswald for a crime that he did not commit. The evidence is internal and external, which any reasonable mind

should find compelling as proof that he was innocent. It should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man.

Can Bill Kelly be serious? They are obvious fakes intended to frame the patsy. I cannot believe that any

serious student of JFK does not know that by now. Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time

ago. I thought all of you were current on these things. Check out "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", first here,

http://www.opednews....091116-941.html

Then here, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks. How Patises are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then here, "Flowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid "In the Nation's Service",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then a follow-up article by Jerry Mazza, "Farid's Photo is a Real Fake. And so is he."

http://www.infowars....e-and-so-is-he/

Plus a thread I started on this topic a long time ago. If you fall for the photos, maybe you will also fall

for the weapon that cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK and not know that the patsy was not even on

the 6th floor at the time the assassination took place. I thought that you were more sophisticated than this.

Bill was not saying the photos were not faked. He is trying to address what they mean.

And they DO mean something REGARDLESS of their authenticity.

This intention on the part of Bill was not that difficult to fathom.

[William Kelly]

Okay, so they're fake, and they were faked in order to implicate Oswald with the weapons. Then what?

What's with the black clothes, clothes that are not among the clothes Oswald had at the time of the assassination? What happened to them?

Did Oswald give them to the homeless in New Orleans?

And what's with the magazines? The Worker and the Militant?

Are there any articles of interest in either of those magazines? Anything about Cuba? Has anybody checked?

The one thing the weapons and the magazines have in common is they passed through the PO box portal.

What else went through there besides the checks from Leslie Welding and the letters to the USNavy, State Dept and Russian embassy?

When did Oswald use the PO box if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?

Did Marina empty the PO box for him? Did Someone else pick up his mail and the weapons?

So many questions, so little time.

BK

Ah! What do (provably fake) photos of the man alleged to have assassinated JFK mean? That is the question?

In the first instance,

They show a man holding communist newspapers (which implies he is a communist sympathizer), holding an obscure

WWII weapon (which was alleged to have been used to kill JFK) and a belt and revolver (which was also alleged

to have been used to take down Officer J.D. Tippit). So on initial consideration, they implicate Lee Oswald.

Upon further consideration,

They show a figure with a block-chin (which was not Oswald's more pointed chin, which had a cleft), with an

insert-line between the chin and the lower lip (indicating the photo has been altered), where the fingertips

of his right had are cut off. So upon further consideration, internal features indicate the photo is faked.

With additional investigation,

It turns out the the weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the President (because they were high-

velocity and the weapon is not), that the revolver cannot have been the Tippit murder weapon (where casings

of two makes from automatics were found at the scene) and that the newspapers are antithetical in their views.

All of which implies that,

As the man accused of the crime observed at the time, the photo shows his head pasted on someone else's body,

which would be proven with time, as has indeed turned out to be the case, including Jack's use of the papers

as an internal ruler to prove that the subject is too short to be Oswald or the papers were inserted too large.

So what does this mean?

The meaning of these photos (since there were four in all) is that an obvious attempt was made to frame Lee

Oswald for a crime that he did not commit. The evidence is internal and external, which any reasonable mind

should find compelling as proof that he was innocent. It should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man.

Can Bill Kelly be serious? They are obvious fakes intended to frame the patsy. I cannot believe that any

serious student of JFK does not know that by now. Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time

ago. I thought all of you were current on these things. Check out "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", first here,

http://www.opednews....091116-941.html

Then here, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks. How Patises are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then here, "Flowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid "In the Nation's Service",

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224

Then a follow-up article by Jerry Mazza, "Farid's Photo is a Real Fake. And so is he."

http://www.infowars....e-and-so-is-he/

Plus a thread I started on this topic a long time ago. If you fall for the photos, maybe you will also fall

for the weapon that cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK and not know that the patsy was not even on

the 6th floor at the time the assassination took place. I thought that you were more sophisticated than this.

Bill was not saying the photos were not faked. He is trying to address what they mean.

And they DO mean something REGARDLESS of their authenticity.

This intention on the part of Bill was not that difficult to fathom.

[Craig Lamson]

Ah! What do (provably fake) photos of the man alleged to have assassinated JFK mean? That is the question?

Poor jimmy...you would not understand "provable" if it smacked you in the face.....

[David Josephs]

Okay, so they're fake, and they were faked in order to implicate Oswald with the weapons. Then what?

What's with the black clothes, clothes that are not among the clothes Oswald had at the time of the assassination? What happened to them?

Did Oswald give them to the homeless in New Orleans?

And what's with the magazines? The Worker and the Militant?

Are there any articles of interest in either of those magazines? Anything about Cuba? Has anybody checked?

The one thing the weapons and the magazines have in common is they passed through the PO box portal.

What else went through there besides the checks from Leslie Welding and the letters to the USNavy, State Dept and Russian embassy?

When did Oswald use the PO box if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?

Did Marina empty the PO box for him? Did Someone else pick up his mail and the weapons?

So many questions, so little time.

BK

If they are fake then everything under Oswald's chin is not his... the black clothes, the papers, everything other than his face was not his to begin with... right?

and I have to agree with Jim... the PO Box has ZERO credibility to have been the manner in which Oswald received these weapons.

From "The Great Carcano Swindle" by Bill MacDowall

12.

CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

As with Harry D. Holmes revelations to the New York Times, the FBI could not have made this determination unless they had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form. The only conclusion it is possible to draw from this information is that Part 3 of Oswald's application still existed after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and that Harry D. Holmes and the FBI knew as much. Harry Holmes' story that Postal Regulations required Part 3 of the form to be destroyed when the box is closed was an act of perjury that attempted to hide the fact that an important piece of evidence had been destroyed sometime after the assassination.

Then what???

With Oswlad dead, as he was supposed to be, the photo(s) simply add to the mountain of bogus evidence against him proclaiming a Castro loving Commie killed the president and Tippit. The fact that the clothes are gone and had never been his, along with the Jacket that was found is again, more evidence that it was a set-up.

[William Kelly]

Okay, so they're fake, and they were faked in order to implicate Oswald with the weapons. Then what?

What's with the black clothes, clothes that are not among the clothes Oswald had at the time of the assassination? What happened to them?

Did Oswald give them to the homeless in New Orleans?

And what's with the magazines? The Worker and the Militant?

Are there any articles of interest in either of those magazines? Anything about Cuba? Has anybody checked?

The one thing the weapons and the magazines have in common is they passed through the PO box portal.

What else went through there besides the checks from Leslie Welding and the letters to the USNavy, State Dept and Russian embassy?

When did Oswald use the PO box if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?

Did Marina empty the PO box for him? Did Someone else pick up his mail and the weapons?

So many questions, so little time.

BK

If they are fake then everything under Oswald's chin is not his... the black clothes, the papers, everything other than his face was not his to begin with... right?

and I have to agree with Jim... the PO Box has ZERO credibility to have been the manner in which Oswald received these weapons.

From "The Great Carcano Swindle" by Bill MacDowall

12.

CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

As with Harry D. Holmes revelations to the New York Times, the FBI could not have made this determination unless they had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form. The only conclusion it is possible to draw from this information is that Part 3 of Oswald's application still existed after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and that Harry D. Holmes and the FBI knew as much. Harry Holmes' story that Postal Regulations required Part 3 of the form to be destroyed when the box is closed was an act of perjury that attempted to hide the fact that an important piece of evidence had been destroyed sometime after the assassination.

Then what???

With Oswlad dead, as he was supposed to be, the photo(s) simply add to the mountain of bogus evidence against him proclaiming a Castro loving Commie killed the president and Tippit. The fact that the clothes are gone and had never been his, along with the Jacket that was found is again, more evidence that it was a set-up.

Yea, it was a Set Up all right, but they didn't go with the cover story that it was a Commie Conspiracy and switched to the Lone Nut Scenario, so then what?

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The pictures become necessary simply because of all the holes in the evidentiary record.

Agreed up to a point. These backyard photos have been (ab)used in the official attempts to accuse an innocent man, and there is no doubt they have been and REMAIN effective PROPAGANDA against Lee Oswald. But they are only PROPAGANDA, and not EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald ever committed any crime.

My Father (May He Rest In Peace) was a crack shot, who often brought home a bagful of pheasant for dinner. He was also a keen photographer with his own darkroom. My father made numerous black-and white photos of my brothers and myself posing with rifles and shotguns, and none of us ever became assassins (so far at least).

So I am not impressed by all the hoopla about Lee Oswald and the backyard photos, and I don't think anyone else should be either.

As to the AUTHENTICITY of the photos, one needs only to search the forum archives for the many posts by Craig Lamson. Craig has forgotten more about photography than even my beloved father ever knew.

Some members here have tried to outdo the Warren Commission by persecuting and accusing Marina Oswald, and I have recently been hounded by new members who want to know how many photos Marina took, etc. I have already dealt with these questions in previous years, and if anyone still wants to know my answers then I suggest they search the forum archives, IF THEY ARE NOT TOO LAZY.

So I say that if anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in getting to the bottom of the JFK assassination, then go look where the EVIDENCE leads.

[Frankie Vegas]

The pictures become necessary simply because of all the holes in the evidentiary record.

Agreed up to a point. These backyard photos have been (ab)used in the official attempts to accuse an innocent man, and there is no doubt they have been and REMAIN effective PROPAGANDA against Lee Oswald. But they are only PROPAGANDA, and not EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald ever committed any crime.

My Father (May He Rest In Peace) was a crack shot, who often brought home a bagful of pheasant for dinner. He was also a keen photographer with his own darkroom. My father made numerous black-and white photos of my brothers and myself posing with rifles and shotguns, and none of us ever became assassins (so far at least).

So I am not impressed by all the hoopla about Lee Oswald and the backyard photos, and I don't think anyone else should be either.

As to the AUTHENTICITY of the photos, one needs only to search the forum archives for the many posts by Craig Lamson. Craig has forgotten more about photography than even my beloved father ever knew.

Some members here have tried to outdo the Warren Commission by persecuting and accusing Marina Oswald, and I have recently been hounded by new members who want to know how many photos Marina took, etc. I have already dealt with these questions in previous years, and if anyone still wants to know my answers then I suggest they search the forum archives, IF THEY ARE NOT TOO LAZY.

So I say that if anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in getting to the bottom of the JFK assassination, then go look where the EVIDENCE leads.

I don't really want to reply to your post because you can be so rude, but surely you can see the difference between kids posing with hunting rifles and such (especially from a hunting family) and a man posing with 2 guns in his back yard holding communist newspapers in the middle of the cold war.

[Bernie Laverick]

The pictures become necessary simply because of all the holes in the evidentiary record.

Agreed up to a point. These backyard photos have been (ab)used in the official attempts to accuse an innocent man, and there is no doubt they have been and REMAIN effective PROPAGANDA against Lee Oswald. But they are only PROPAGANDA, and not EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald ever committed any crime.

My Father (May He Rest In Peace) was a crack shot, who often brought home a bagful of pheasant for dinner. He was also a keen photographer with his own darkroom. My father made numerous black-and white photos of my brothers and myself posing with rifles and shotguns, and none of us ever became assassins (so far at least).

So I am not impressed by all the hoopla about Lee Oswald and the backyard photos, and I don't think anyone else should be either.

As to the AUTHENTICITY of the photos, one needs only to search the forum archives for the many posts by Craig Lamson. Craig has forgotten more about photography than even my beloved father ever knew.

Some members here have tried to outdo the Warren Commission by persecuting and accusing Marina Oswald, and I have recently been hounded by new members who want to know how many photos Marina took, etc. I have already dealt with these questions in previous years, and if anyone still wants to know my answers then I suggest they search the forum archives, IF THEY ARE NOT TOO LAZY.

So I say that if anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in getting to the bottom of the JFK assassination, then go look where the EVIDENCE leads.

Some members here have tried to outdo the Warren Commission by persecuting and accusing Marina Oswald, and I have recently been hounded by new members who want to know how many photos Marina took, etc. I have already dealt with these questions in previous years, and if anyone still wants to know my answers then I suggest they search the forum archives, IF THEY ARE NOT TOO LAZY.[/b

Hey Ray why are you LNers so evasive and coy when asked a perfectly simple question?

Actually ...no I don't "still wants to know your answers"...you really have nothing to offer the debate except aggressive diatribes and childish diversionary tactics.

You've been rumbled!