How Did They Get Roscoe White To Lean Like That And Not Fall Over?

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

This.

Rob, I agree with you 100%. If you are familiar with "real" trial testimony then the WC transcripts read like a prosecution wet dream.

Mark Lane tried to insert himself into the process but was disparaged at every turn by the hard-line WC'ers. It's in the WC Executive Session transcripts FWIW.

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

This.

Rob, I agree with you 100%. If you are familiar with "real" trial testimony then the WC transcripts read like a prosecution wet dream.

Mark Lane tried to insert himself into the process but was disparaged at every turn by the hard-line WC'ers. It's in the WC Executive Session transcripts FWIW.

Hi Chris. Yes the WC kept Mark Lane on a short leash and that is a shame for all of us. The head of the American Bar Association was appointed to look out for LHOs interests and rights, but he cross-examined no one. He made no effort to assist the process of giving LHO fair treatment.

The WC asked less than 2 or 3 percent probative questions too. They clearly were not searching for what really happened IMO.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Rob Caprio

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Just note that the Imperial Reflex camera was never shown to be LHO's camera. During Marina Oswald's initial testimony in February 1964 she said that LHO owned two cameras - a Russian one and an American one, but the American one was not the Imperial Reflex camera.

This camera was never discovered by the DPD during their two searches of the Paine residence. It was allegedly found by Ruth Paine in the beginning of December, and instead of giving it to the police she instead gave it to Robert Oswald.

The camera was not operable at the time of discovery. In fact,it was only used twice supposedly to take the BYPs and the alleged surveillance photos of Walker's house.

The Imperial Reflex camera was difficult to use so the idea that Marina could use it effectively when she had no experience with cameras also stretches the bounds of reasonability IMO.

She initially said that the photographs were taken in late February, but then changed it to late March. She initially said that she took just one photo, but then changed it to two. But she also said that she burned one additional photo. Then it was two that she burned. But then it was just one again. This would mean that she really took three photos as the one burned was a different pose, but she never said that she took three photos.

IMO no one should rely on Marina for anything in this area.

I rely on everything Marina said under oath -- however, Marina herself admitted that she knew very little -- mainly what Lee told her, and he was often an unreliable source.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera -- even granting your one-sided observations and suspicion about Ruth Paine -- photographic experts at the very least concluded that the BYP were made with the Imperial Reflex camera -- to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Marina claimed ignorance about cameras as she claimed ignorance about rifles and guns. In the early 1960's, that was common for females. Very little of USA life was co-ed in the early 1960's -- it was very much like the 1950's until JFK was assassinated.

Do you wish to review Marina's testimony about the Imperial Reflex in this thread, Rob? I believe it is defensible. IMHO, Oswald used both the cheap Imperial Reflex camera as well as the expensive, sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall to create at least four different BYP's himself -- deliberately -- for plausible deniability.

He used the assistance of Roscoe White for this purpose.

After having done this back in March 1963, when LHO was confronted on November 23, 1963 with one of the BYP by Captain Will Fritz, LHO predictably said, "That photo is a Fake! It is my face stuck on somebody else's body! I know a lot about photography and I can prove that!"

In other words, LHO had immediate plausible deniability -- and he had rehearsed that little speech for six months! Every word he said there was true!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

Rob,

I don't know if Marina had a lawyer during her WC interrogations (I would imagine that she did), but her coming to the US from the USSR, a regime not known for ensuring fair judicial proceedings, might have put the fear of god into her regarding her WC testimony, and therefore might have caused her to be more truthful under that kind of questioning than she otherwise would have been.

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Hi Tommy. Your point is good as it makes sense she would be afraid of being deported, but the record is still the record. She was extremely unreliable in many cases and outright untruthful in quite a few other situations. That is not me saying that but rather the WC and the HSCA saying that.

She did have a lawyer by the way. As for the legal system in her country I am not aware of the fact that she was ever in legal trouble, but I could be wrong. I have learned a lot of new things about her in the last few months that have made me doubt the innocent girl she portrayed.

Marguerite Oswald thought that both Marina and Ruth Paine were involved in the conspiracy. Given both of their track records it is hard for me to just up and discount this claim. They both gave a lot of testimony against LHO. Ruth Paine kept "finding" evidence after the assassination when the DPD had searched her home twice and had not found it.

Call me skeptical.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Rob Caprio

[Thomas Graves]

Just note that the Imperial Reflex camera was never shown to be LHO's camera. During Marina Oswald's initial testimony in February 1964 she said that LHO owned two cameras - a Russian one and an American one, but the American one was not the Imperial Reflex camera.

This camera was never discovered by the DPD during their two searches of the Paine residence. It was allegedly found by Ruth Paine in the beginning of December, and instead of giving it to the police she instead gave it to Robert Oswald.

The camera was not operable at the time of discovery. In fact,it was only used twice supposedly to take the BYPs and the alleged surveillance photos of Walker's house.

The Imperial Reflex camera was difficult to use so the idea that Marina could use it effectively when she had no experience with cameras also stretches the bounds of reasonability IMO.

She initially said that the photographs were taken in late February, but then changed it to late March. She initially said that she took just one photo, but then changed it to two. But she also said that she burned one additional photo. Then it was two that she burned. But then it was just one again. This would mean that she really took three photos as the one burned was a different pose, but she never said that she took three photos.

IMO no one should rely on Marina for anything in this area.

I rely on everything Marina said under oath -- however, Marina herself admitted that she knew very little -- mainly what Lee told her, and he was often an unreliable source.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera -- even granting your one-sided observations and suspicion about Ruth Paine -- photographic experts at the very least concluded that the BYP were made with the Imperial Reflex camera -- to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Marina claimed ignorance about cameras as she claimed ignorance about rifles and guns. In the early 1960's, that was common for females. Very little of USA life was co-ed in the early 1960's -- it was very much like the 1950's until JFK was assassinated.

Do you wish to review Marina's testimony about the Imperial Reflex in this thread, Rob? I believe it is defensible. IMHO, Oswald used both the cheap Imperial Reflex camera as well as the expensive, sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall to create at least four different BYP's himself -- deliberately -- for plausible deniability.

He used the assistance of Roscoe White for this purpose.

After having done this back in March 1963, when LHO was confronted on November 23, 1963 with one of the BYP by Captain Will Fritz, LHO predictably said, "That photo is a Fake! It is my face stuck on somebody else's body! I know a lot about photography and I can prove that!"

In other words, LHO had immediate plausible deniability -- and he had rehearsed that little speech for six months! Every word he said there was true!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

Rob,

I don't know if Marina had a lawyer during her WC interrogations (I would imagine that she did), but her coming to the US from the USSR, a regime not known for ensuring fair judicial proceedings, might have put the fear of god into her regarding her WC testimony, and therefore might have caused her to be more truthful under that kind of questioning than she otherwise would have been.

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Hi Tommy. Your point is good as it makes sense she would be afraid of being deported, but the record is still the record. She was extremely unreliable in many cases and outright untruthful in quite a few other situations. That is not me saying that but rather the WC and the HSCA saying that.

She did have a lawyer by the way. As for the legal system in her country I am not aware of the fact that she was ever in legal trouble, but I could be wrong. I have learned a lot of new things about her in the last few months that have made me doubt the innocent girl she portrayed.

Marguerite Oswald thought that both Marina and Ruth Paine were involved in the conspiracy. Given both of their track records it is hard for me to just up and discount this claim. They both gave a lot of testimony against LHO. Ruth Paine kept "finding" evidence after the assassination when the DPD had searched her home twice and had not found it.

Call me skeptical.

Rob,

I wasn't trying to suggest that Marina might have been particularly afraid of being deported back to Russia (USSR, actually), but that she might have been concerned about being taken to the basement of our own "Lubyanka"!

Rumors of prostitution aside, I don't know if she ever had any problems with the law in Russia. Regardless, everyone in Russia must have been aware of the horrors of Khrushchev's predecessors' purges and show trials, and the way Soviet "justice" worked in general. She might have assumed it was almost as bad here.

-- Tommy

Edited September 22, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/21/2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I would not agree with your pincushion drawing in the RIT 4.1 picture. The displacement seen in RIT 4.1 is dramatic and exceeds by a large margin the pincushion effect I show in the [bYP].

Indeed there must be an explanation for there being a large amount of pincushion in the RIT 4.1 photo (below), given the minimal pincushion we observe in the BYPs.

However I disagree with you that it can explained by the curling of the paper in RIT 4.1. The apparent loss of paper width due to curling is relatively small, as I will demonstrate in a moment. The real cause of the large amount of pincushioning must either be the use of a different lens setting, or simply that the shot is a closeup.

Please note how poorly is the bottom right square in RIT 4.1. mounted on the wall - it flips away from the wall and creates a curvature which you assimilated into your blue pincushion line.

I noticed the curvature of the paper when I was studying the photo... where the paper isn't sitting flat in the poster board. (See it in the photo, below left.) It is visible on the square sheet of paper on the bottom right of the photo.

Let's estimate how much (apparent) width is lost due to the curling:

NOTE: There is no need to read this unless you want to confirm my calculations.

 

First, let's assume the paper 10 by 10 units in size. To me it appears that the paper is lifted off the board by about 1/2 unit.

 

Now, pretend we rotate the bottom of the poster board up toward us, so that we are looking at the bottom edge of the poster board and the bottom edges of the sheets of paper. The shape of the curled sheet can be approximated as a right-triangle, the hypotenuse of which is formed by the curled part of the paper, extending from the bottom-center of the sheet to the bottom-left corner of the sheet. The angle of the right-triangle is at the bottom-center of the sheet, the adjacent (x axis) side runs from that point on the poster board to a projection of the curled corner down onto poster board. That projection from the curled corner down to the poster board makes the opposite (y axis) side of the triangle.

 

The hypotenuse is 5 units in length, and the opposite side is 1/2 unit (0.5 unit).

 

The angle of the triangle is calculated as

 

angle = arcsin (opposite / hypotenuse) = arcsin (0.5 / 5) = 5.7 degrees

 

The length of the adjacent side is

 

adjacent = hypotenuse x cos (angle) = 5 x cos (5.7 degrees) = 4.98 units

 

Therefore, the left half of that sheet of paper appears to be about 4.98 units wide rather than the correct 5 units wide. That is only 0.4% smaller than the correct width.

So my calculation shows that the loss of width (of the left-half-sheet of paper), due to curling, is about 0.4%.

By comparison, I measure the loss of width (of the left-half-sheet of paper), due to pincushion distortion, to be about 9%. The 0.4% loss due to curling is insignificant.

I am not surprised by this, given that we see roughly the same amount of pincushion distortion on the left side, where the paper appears not to be curled up.

One can see even a shadow cast by the left edge of the square. So, there must be a different explanation for the rightwards running top square in RIT 4.1.

EDIT: I took a small, square sheet of paper (a Post-It note) and replicated the best I could what we see in the photo, including the curl. And I found that the result agreed with my calculations above.

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

The problem of Figure RIT 4.1., exhibits of the HSCA, can be understood from the picture below. It shows the lines extending the left and right edges of the top square. These lines create an angle opening upwards. And surprise, surprise: the same angle applies to the angle created by the rightwards falling vertical edge of the fence and the staircase vertical post next to Mr. Oswald.

Well, this match cannot be a coincidence. There are only two explanations for having these angles in a perfect match: 1) The Imperial camera had an optical problem, such as e.g., the mirror in the camera slightly misplaced relative to the axis of the lens (tilted) creating "keystoning" on every snap; therefore, RIT 4.1. and the backyard picture had to show identical anomaly, and actually this anomaly strengthens the authenticity of the backyard picture. 2) The RIT 4.1. was rigged to show an anomaly which exactly matched the alteration made in the backyard picture. Any preference?

Andrej,

What you have shown here is a coincidence. If the optics in the two photos are identical, as you suggest with your two vertical lines, then how do you explain the following:

• The fact that the angles, both left and right, that we see in the bottom half of the bottom photo are not seen in the bottom half of the top (BYP) photo? Namely in the post on the left and edge of the privacy fence on the right?

• The fact that the other BYPs also don't exhibit the angles seen in bottom half of the bottom photo?

You can't have it both ways, saying (or implying) that the upper angles indicate a match but the bottom angles are irrelevant.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Finally, please see the alignment of RIT 4.1. and the CE-133c. Again, a very good match.

Thus, my answer to the question I asked in post No. 239 would be that the Imperial camera had an optical problem causing the vertical lines in the right part of the picture to be displaced towards the right.

What about the vertical lines on the left being displaced toward the left? Look at the window frames.

Thus, keystoning was in place, however, it was a natural phenomenon which related to a certain malfunction of this particular camera. Further, it is almost excluded, in my opinion, that this defect was present in every Imperial camera. Therefore, the divergence of the vertical lines actually cements this particular camera as the one used to take all three backyard pictures.

[Sandy Larsen]

Straight or Curved lines?

It appears that Andrej believes that the vertical edges of the sheets of paper (below) are straight, not curved. I believe that they are curved. I can explain why Andrej sees what he believes to be the case.

In order to do that, I need you to trust what I say for a moment.

Let me explain how the vertical lines in the photo got to look the way they do.

The camera lens is exhibiting pincushioning. See my curved lines in the bottom photo... this is pincushion distortion.

Now look at Andrej's picture below, with his dashed, straight, vertical lines. The edges of the upper paper do indeed look straight. But they are not. They have a slight curve that is very hard to see. Compare those edges to the edges of the bottom pair of papers. On the bottom papers it is easier to see the curvature.

There is a good reason why the edges of the upper paper look straighter, and the ones on the bottom papers look more curved. It is because the camera wasn't pointed straight on, at the center of the poster board. Instead, the camera was located down around the lower sheets of paper, but was angled up so that it was aimed at the center of the poster board.

So what effect did this camera angle have on the photo? First, remember that things further away from the lens's line of sight will appear smaller. That is perspective. The camera was located low, so things at the top of the picture will appear smaller, and two vertical lines will appear to be closer together the further up they are.

Okay, now look again at my two curved pincushion lines. The affect of the camera's angle will make the tops of the two lines to appear closer together. Because of this, the pincushion lines at the top will straighten out some. That is the reason there is less curvature on the upper paper's edges!

As for the curvature on the bottom sheets of paper... well Andrej pretty much ignores those two sheets because they don't fit his goal of showing there is nothing fishy going on with the angles seen in the BYPs. He says that the curl on the right-bottom sheet of paper is what makes it look like it's edge is curved. But I've shown this not to be the case... the curl has insignificant effect.

(NOTE: I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with what Andrej is doing. It's always good to have an opposing voice. I'm glad he's there to check my work. But at the same time I'm glad that I'm here to check his work. Because if I weren't, I'm afraid that Andrej would be taking people astray. I think there's a good lesson to learn from this. And that is, when there is no opposing expert on a given topic, we need to be cautious in trusting what the one expert has to say.)

(P.S. I don't mean to say or imply that Andrej and I are experts in the field of optics. Only that we are the ones studying the topic and making the bold claims.)

[Paul Trejo]

...

Can you please share with me the evidence that shows EAW thought that LHO was one of the two shooters? I am interested as I have not seen that before so it would be exciting to see it. Thanks.

Rob, thanks for the discussion. So as not to hijack this thread, I have moved your interesting question to Tommy's new thread, entitled, "New Questions for Paul Trejo."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Sandy:

I found a better version of Figure RIT 4.1 in the HSCA report, page 182. It shows that the bottom two squares did really stand out from the brick wall and therefore, cannot be used for any pincushion analysis. Naturally, a small pincushion effect is present also in the picture below, however, it is not that strong as indicated with your blue lines which wrongly copy the bottom rectangles. In contrast to the bottom squares, which appear to be framed, the top square is mounted flat and fixated in the corners with pieces of tape. This square reveals an optical problem of this particular camera which appears to have been overlooked for so many years. As I am constructing the 3D model of the doorway, I can now trust rather my model in terms of the vertical lines than the pictures from this camera - the program does not know about any imperfections of this particular Imperial camera.

This picture is very useful. It shows that the vertical lines in the bottom part, especially in the centre of the picture, were straight. The problem is the right upper quadrant, especially the part which is occupied by the right top part of the square. It causes the vertical line to fall rightwards, and maybe the horizontal lines downwards.

To convince you that Oswald's camera distorted the pictures especially in the upper right quadrant, I am posting a family picture made by Lee Oswald. There are no guiding lines here, however, I hope you can extend the edges of the top square into the family picture (I have aligned the left edge of the top square with the brick column in the upper picture). The brick column is straight, however, the windows grills further to the right and the right wall fall towards the right. Please, note the leftward orientation of the window in the left part of the family picture, exactly as in CE133A.

I hope I have answered your queries. I am posting below the updated alignements of RIT 4.1. and the three backyard pictures.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Paul Trejo]

Andrej,

Even if you prove that the keystoning effect was due to that specific Imperial Reflex camera (which must be proved by access to several different photographs from that same camera, and still remains to be seen) you will still miss the main point and method of the BYP deception, namely, that the face of LHO is pasted onto somebody else's body -- namely, that of Roscoe White.

That simply isn't LHO's chin. The keystoning is a separate issue.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Paul:

my interest is actually the posture of Prayer Man as this is the problem I have been working on for a long time, and I somehow occurred in this thread. According to what you write, my future here seems to be pretty grim.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

my interest is actually the posture of Prayer Man as this is the problem I have been working on for a long time, and I somehow occurred in this thread. According to what you write, my future here seems to be pretty grim.

Well, then I misunderstood, somehow, Andrej. I thought the main question of everybody here was whether or not the BYP were authentic. I thought you were arguing for the BYP being authentic. I was seeking feedback on Roscoe White's chin in the BYP.

If I've misunderstood you, Andrej, then I apologize.

Regards,

--Paul

Edited September 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Paul:

my interest is actually the posture of Prayer Man as this is the problem I have been working on for a long time, and I somehow occurred in this thread. According to what you write, my future here seems to be pretty grim.

Well, then I misunderstood, somehow, Andrej. I thought the main question of everybody here was whether or not the BYP were authentic. I thought you were arguing for the BYP being authentic. I was seeking feedback on Roscoe White's chin in the BYP.

If I've misunderstood you, Andrej, then I apologize.

Regards,

--Paul

Paul:

I am afraid that you have misunderstood. Please read the title of the thread:

How Did They Get Roscoe White To Lean Like That And Not Fall Over?

The question of authenticity of the backyard picture came later, however, no harm done.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

I found a better version of Figure RIT 4.1 in the HSCA report, page 182. It shows that the bottom two squares did really stand out from the brick wall and therefore, cannot be used for any pincushion analysis. Naturally, a small pincushion effect is present also in the picture below, however, it is not that strong as indicated with your blue lines which wrongly copy the bottom rectangles. In contrast to the bottom squares, which appear to be framed, the top square is mounted flat and fixated in the corners with pieces of tape. This square reveals an optical problem of this particular camera which appears to have been overlooked for so many years. As I am constructing the 3D model of the doorway, I can now trust rather my model in terms of the vertical lines than the pictures from this camera - the program does not know about any imperfections of this particular Imperial camera.

This picture is very useful. It shows that the vertical lines in the bottom part, especially in the centre of the picture, were straight. The problem is the right upper quadrant, especially the part which is occupied by the right top part of the square. It causes the vertical line to fall rightwards, and maybe the horizontal lines downwards.

To convince you that Oswald's camera distorted the pictures especially in the upper right quadrant, I am posting a family picture made by Lee Oswald. There are no guiding lines here, however, I hope you can extend the edges of the top square into the family picture (I have aligned the left edge of the top square with the brick column in the upper picture). The brick column is straight, however, the windows grills further to the right and the right wall fall towards the right. Please, note the leftward orientation of the window in the left part of the family picture, exactly as in CE133A.

I hope I have answered your queries. I am posting below the updated alignements of RIT 4.1. and the three backyard pictures.

That's a good find Andrej.

I see now that we're not dealing with a posterboard, but rather with a large wall. And the "curled papers" are really large posters that are set on the floor and leaning against the wall. As you remarked, this is a problem for pincushion analysis because the leaning posters introduce a large amount of perspective distortion. It is difficult to distinguish between the perspective distortion and the pincushion distortion. What this means is that I can't draw vertical lines at the bottom showing that the vertical lines in the BYPs must also diverge like they do at the top if you accept that the optical distortions in this photo represents the distortions in the BYPs.

In short, there is nothing I can do with this photo.

However, as it turns out that's a moot point. Because after studying carefully the family photo you presented, I became convinced that asymmetrical distortion was occurring. It's not supposed to occur given the symmetrical way lens elements are manufactured. But when I saw in the home photo all kinds of asymmetrical distortions (for example pincushioning on the right outside wall and roof-line, but straight angles in other areas) I concluded that significant asymmetrical distortions were indeed occurring.

I checked further and discovered that the lens for this camera is made out of plastic. BINGO! I knew I had found the problem.

Glass lenses are ground and polished in a way that maintains symmetry. Plastic lenses, I'm sure, are not ground at all. They are made by casting or injection molding. The shape is determined by the mold, which was made in some machine shop. Machine shops don't necessarily use cutting techniques designed to make a mold radially symmetrical.

So, as of now I believe that the angles we see in the BYPs are due to imperfections in the plastic lens. Not keystoning. I could change my mind if a photo from the same camera surfaces that doesn't have the same optical foot print as the other photos. But right now I'm satisfied with this conclusion.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest Rob Caprio]

Just note that the Imperial Reflex camera was never shown to be LHO's camera. During Marina Oswald's initial testimony in February 1964 she said that LHO owned two cameras - a Russian one and an American one, but the American one was not the Imperial Reflex camera.

This camera was never discovered by the DPD during their two searches of the Paine residence. It was allegedly found by Ruth Paine in the beginning of December, and instead of giving it to the police she instead gave it to Robert Oswald.

The camera was not operable at the time of discovery. In fact,it was only used twice supposedly to take the BYPs and the alleged surveillance photos of Walker's house.

The Imperial Reflex camera was difficult to use so the idea that Marina could use it effectively when she had no experience with cameras also stretches the bounds of reasonability IMO.

She initially said that the photographs were taken in late February, but then changed it to late March. She initially said that she took just one photo, but then changed it to two. But she also said that she burned one additional photo. Then it was two that she burned. But then it was just one again. This would mean that she really took three photos as the one burned was a different pose, but she never said that she took three photos.

IMO no one should rely on Marina for anything in this area.

I rely on everything Marina said under oath -- however, Marina herself admitted that she knew very little -- mainly what Lee told her, and he was often an unreliable source.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera -- even granting your one-sided observations and suspicion about Ruth Paine -- photographic experts at the very least concluded that the BYP were made with the Imperial Reflex camera -- to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Marina claimed ignorance about cameras as she claimed ignorance about rifles and guns. In the early 1960's, that was common for females. Very little of USA life was co-ed in the early 1960's -- it was very much like the 1950's until JFK was assassinated.

Do you wish to review Marina's testimony about the Imperial Reflex in this thread, Rob? I believe it is defensible. IMHO, Oswald used both the cheap Imperial Reflex camera as well as the expensive, sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall to create at least four different BYP's himself -- deliberately -- for plausible deniability.

He used the assistance of Roscoe White for this purpose.

After having done this back in March 1963, when LHO was confronted on November 23, 1963 with one of the BYP by Captain Will Fritz, LHO predictably said, "That photo is a Fake! It is my face stuck on somebody else's body! I know a lot about photography and I can prove that!"

In other words, LHO had immediate plausible deniability -- and he had rehearsed that little speech for six months! Every word he said there was true!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Being "under oath" with the WC meant very little for several reasons. Firstly, they never enforced a perjury charge against any witness, thus, they never enforced a "must tell the truth" approach.

Secondly, there was no cross-examination, therefore, it is not legal testimony that you will find in a court of law. Numerous witnesses brought lawyers with them to testify, but there was no lawyer for LHO. That is wrong.

You have the right to believe everything that Marina said, but both the WC and HSCA had doubts about her truthfulness on quite a few issues. I choose to be more careful and that is my right.

You call my account of the camera "one-sided", but it is based on the evidence. Do you have different evidence? If so, please let me know about it. You seem willing to believe claims by Marina and lay the issue on LHO, but that is not how I see it. Anything LHO would have told her in private was protected under law so all we would have is her claim that it was said.

I don't need to review the testimony in this thread as I have reviewed it for thirty years, therefore, I know that there is no evidence showing that LHO owned that camera or that Marina ever took any photos.

Just so you know, I am new here, but I am not new to this topic.

Rob,

I don't know if Marina had a lawyer during her WC interrogations (I would imagine that she did), but her coming to the US from the USSR, a regime not known for ensuring fair judicial proceedings, might have put the fear of god into her regarding her WC testimony, and therefore might have caused her to be more truthful under that kind of questioning than she otherwise would have been.

Just sayin'.

-- Tommy

Hi Tommy. Your point is good as it makes sense she would be afraid of being deported, but the record is still the record. She was extremely unreliable in many cases and outright untruthful in quite a few other situations. That is not me saying that but rather the WC and the HSCA saying that.

She did have a lawyer by the way. As for the legal system in her country I am not aware of the fact that she was ever in legal trouble, but I could be wrong. I have learned a lot of new things about her in the last few months that have made me doubt the innocent girl she portrayed.

Marguerite Oswald thought that both Marina and Ruth Paine were involved in the conspiracy. Given both of their track records it is hard for me to just up and discount this claim. They both gave a lot of testimony against LHO. Ruth Paine kept "finding" evidence after the assassination when the DPD had searched her home twice and had not found it.

Call me skeptical.

Rob,

I wasn't trying to suggest that Marina might have been particularly afraid of being deported back to Russia (USSR, actually), but that she might have been concerned about being taken to the basement of our own "Lubyanka"!

Rumors of prostitution aside, I don't know if she ever had any problems with the law in Russia. Regardless, everyone in Russia must have been aware of the horrors of Khrushchev's predecessors' purges and show trials, and the way Soviet "justice" worked in general. She might have assumed it was almost as bad here.

-- Tommy

Well...her uncle was KGB. There have been thoughts that she had ties to intelligence too. I'm not sure on that and have no supporting evidence to state it with certainty. Just a thought.

She should not even have been allowed to leave the USSR, and certainly not allowed into the U.S. If you look at this issue there is no reason that she was granted access based on our laws. Furthermore, it was against our rules to allow someone to bring a spouse if they could not support them on their own. LHO had no job and no prospects, but still they allowed him to bring Marina. He of course relied heavily on unemployment insurance to support them and that is a no-no. But what if that was just a cover for his real job?

I don't think that she would have been tortured or anything as the spotlight was to bright for that. Her English was better than we have been led to believe as well. She was receiving all kinds of money too from people around the country and book advances.

Nah, I don't think she was afraid for her safety at all, but that is just my opinion.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Rob Caprio