NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos” (CE-133-A, B, C) is different from “Oswald’s” so-called rifle and scope (CE 139)

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

Thank you!  Why didn’t I think of e-Bay?

I’ll start checking.  Don’t know if “Oswald” and the rifle were on the Newsweek cover.  Thanks again!
 

[John Kozlowski]

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Thank you!  Why didn’t I think of e-Bay?

I’ll start checking.  Don’t know if “Oswald” and the rifle were on the Newsweek cover.  Thanks again!
 

No it was Life. There are copies available on eBay, etsy and a few other sites I found. The Feb 21st issue

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, but I have the Feb. 21, 1964 issue of LIFE.  One of the photos near the top of this thread was scanned from my copy.

I'm looking for the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek magazine, which supposedly included the picture of "Oswald's" rifle sent out via AP wirephoto service and shown here (click on the image below to enlarge):

I'm studying on eBay the other Newsweek pub dates you mentioned.  Thanks again.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[David Josephs]

Thanks for the image with which to work Jim....

Playing devil's advocate here... isn't possible that the scope issue was simply a case of a very poor image? 

I see some of the telltale signs of the scope in that poor newspaper image...  (it's set to repeat 3 times... need to refresh page to see again)

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by David Josephs

[John Butler]

Don't know whether this is helpful or not:

I adjusted the brightness and contrast on the right hand photo.  There is an article on the internet that said the Detroit Free Press folks removed the scope with liquid chalk rather than adjusting the contrast, etc.  Why would both magazines use the same procedure and do the same stupid thing to remove a scope?  Why remove the scope at all?  Why they would do that I don't have a clue?   What's needed is the CE 133 A BYP photo from Newsweek for comparison.

I don't see an area indicating the scope was removed.  I don't see an area where liquid chalk was used.  I do see what could be a portion of the scope mount indicating some medium was used to erase the scope.

The Oswald figure's head does seem to be to big for his body.  A very long time ago I learned the head/body ratio was six to one.  In other words 6 feet for the body and 1 foot for the head to be adjusted for height.  That has changed with modern measures and better statistics. 

The article on the internet I read about this seem to say the Detroit FP and Newsweek articles were in Feb., 1964,

Edited July 25, 2019 by John Butler

[David Josephs]

We all truly need to become acquainted with the SHANEYFELT exhibits in the WCR.....

The "copy" negative for this image is what Newsweek and Life apparently received...  A negative made from the DeMohrenschildt print I believe.

Not exactly sure how one would add a scope ... we do know they made the stock look straighter than it really was (#1 alteration)

So we have a composite image of Ozzie's face and a body.  Notice too how the newspaper's shadow is lightened in the LIFE cover whereas in the 133-B print
it betrays how the nose shadow SHOULD look... not straight down but to Ozzie's right... should we see more of a shadow from the newspaper on his torso?

 

How and why does the scope in this photo have any bearing on CE139?  We don't even know that's the same rifle at all....  We don't know what happened to the rifle Drain sent cause Frazier doesn't tell us CE139 was the rifle which arrived from DALLAS the morning of 11/23...

Would Eisenberg be guilty of leading the witness here – ya think?   What value is there initialing evidence AFTER it gets to the lab? That proves nothing as ANY RIFLE could have been used...   as to the BYP and the scope...  I just see Butler wrong as he has been in each and every photographic analysis he's done and posted to these pages...
Remember he's the one claiming Hill and Moorman were moved from up Elm as well as completely changed....

 

 

Another quality analysis from our man JB... Pu-leeze already with that man's opinions.

 

 

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a rifle marked Commission Exhibit 139.
Are you familiar with this weapon? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I am. 
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you recognize it by serial number or by your mark? 
Mr. FRAZIER - By serial number on the barrel, and by my initials which appear on various parts of the weapon. 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by David Josephs

[Jim Hargrove]

David,

Thank you for your posts.

You say we all need to become acquainted with the SHANEYFELT exhibits, but I’m not sure what the point is.  Even if we accept that in the LIFE BYP “the entire area around the scope was lightened to bring out the scope,” how does this account for the fact that the scope is actually SHORTER in the LIFE magazine photo than in CE 139?  What in Shaneyfelt explains that?  Rather than have part of itself disappear, the scope should be clearer in the LIFE version, should it not?

As you can see from the above, you can visually detect the slight fold in the dark shirt immediately to the viewer’s left of the scope, but the scope is clearly shorter in the LIFE illustration, as shown below.

Since the rifles are the same lengths, the scopes should also be the same lengths.  Minor variations in camera angles don’t change the proportions of scope length to rifle length.

What do you make of the statement, “The assumption the WC has the negative is slightly amusing….”?

Also, your inclusion of McCabe's letter to Rankin is VERY much appreciated!  His confession that his NEWSWEEK photo editors accidentally erased the scope is pretty damned funny... though that doesn't entirely mean it isn't true.  Why, though, am I suspicious?  Call me paranoid?

Your help is most appreciated!!

Edited July 26, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[John Butler]

Isn't it strange that both the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek made the same kind of error in brushing out or, adjusting the contrast or using liquid chalk on the scope ending in its removal.  Its as the nurse on Scrubs use to say, it's a co-winky-dink.  And, a strange one at that leading to suspicion and paranoia. 

Josephs said "The "copy" negative for this image is what Newsweek and Life apparently received...  A negative made from the DeMohrenschildt print I believe."

I wonder how a "copy" negative of the DeMohrenschildt print was made available to Newsweek and Life from a print photo that wasn't found until February 1967?

I found this background information informative help on the issue.

From Kennedy and King: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:01

A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3

Written by Jeff Carter

“In early 1964, the backyard photo identified as 133-A was sold and/or released to several newspapers and magazines, resulting in wide public dissemination, most notably on the cover of Life Magazine’s February 21 issue. The release of the photo was considered a serious breach of the Warren Commission’s confidentiality, and the FBI was tasked with investigating “how the press got hold of the photo.” The FBI responded energetically, focusing resources in numerous cities.

Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald.

An internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 is far less circumspect, stating: “Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.” The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, “made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.” Life Magazine negotiated a price of $5000 with Marina Oswald’s business agents for the publication rights to the photo, but the photo itself came from “an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department.” Life had an “original copy negative” of the photo, made in Dallas. (Shaneyfelt Exhibit 10)²”

and,

"133-A de Mohrenschildt The de Mohrenschildt backyard photo was apparently discovered in February 1967 by Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, inside the sleeve of a record album found at a Dallas storage unit the de Mohrenschildts had secured ahead of their move to Haiti in April 1963. The record album, an instructional Russian/English language LP, had been lent by Jeanne to Marina Oswald, and was found with similar albums inside a box which had been placed in the storage locker sometime after the de Mohrenschildt’s departure, perhaps through Everett Glover and Michael Paine.

The photo was deemed a first generation print of 133-A (although some researchers believe the Oswald figure’s arms are held higher), with markedly higher detail and resolution compared to the originally discovered prints. On the back side of the photo are two inscriptions. One says “To my friend George from Lee Oswald 5/IV/63.” The other, written in darker ink, is Russian cyrillic translated as “hunter of fascists ha-ha-ha!!!” This second inscription appears to have been written over the top of other writing which had been erased. The HSCA commissioned a handwriting expert who determined that the first inscription matched Lee Oswald’s known handwriting. The second inscription was thought to have been written by Marina Oswald. The subject was broached during an interview, with the now Mrs Porter, on September 13, 1978:

Mr. McDONALD ... do you recognize the handwriting?

Mrs. PORTER. No, I don’t ... you have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after I examine it, I know it is not ... this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language.⁴

In his manuscript “I Am A Patsy”, George de Mohrenschildt described how he viewed the photo as a “gift from the grave” from Lee Oswald. If it was a “gift”, an assumption since the print’s origin and presence inside the record album remain mysterious, then, presuming the April 5 1963 inscription date correct, Oswald passed on an opportunity to present it directly when the de Mohrenschildts apparently paid a social visit the following weekend, what would turn out to be their last meeting."

***

Josephs likes to bring up Mary Moorman and Jean Hill in disparagement.  He gets highly offended whenever the names Hill and Moorman come up and this is not the first time he has posted his supposed rebuttal as an insult.  That doesn't work as far as I am concerned.  I generally ignore him on that and will continue to do so.

That interpretation of the placement of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman is completely legitimate based upon the WC CE Hill #5.  In which Jean Hill placed herself across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD on a map drawn by Arlen Specter.  It is also based on the fraudulent nature of the Zapruder film.

Arlen Specter then placed that drawing in a Top Secret status and it was not seen for years.  Here's a question for Josephs.  Why did Arlen Specter hide this information away by classifying it as Top Secret if he didn't consider it important and worth hiding?

I had better be careful or Josephs will again accuse me of being a "cointelpro agent".

Edited July 26, 2019 by John Butler

[John Kozlowski]

14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, but I have the Feb. 21, 1964 issue of LIFE.  One of the photos near the top of this thread was scanned from my copy.

I'm looking for the April 22, 1964 edition of Newsweek magazine, which supposedly included the picture of "Oswald's" rifle sent out via AP wirephoto service and shown here (click on the image below to enlarge):

I'm studying on eBay the other Newsweek pub dates you mentioned.  Thanks again.

Did you ever find the Newsweek you were looking for? Just curious because I found nothing from the date you gave.

[John Butler]

3 minutes ago, John Kozlowski said:

Did you ever find the Newsweek you were looking for? Just curious because I found nothing from the date you gave.

The post I just made had this:

"Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald."

Which suggests the date for the Newsweek edition was March 2, 1964.

[John Kozlowski]

8 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The post I just made had this:

"Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald."

Which suggests the date for the Newsweek edition was March 2, 1964.

http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/oswalds_backyard_photo

I searched that date and found this article. It says after the Life. Claims after the Life publication additional papers and magazine used the photo and it was altered trying to enhance it.

Edited July 26, 2019 by John Kozlowski

[David Josephs]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:38 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

What do you make of the statement, “The assumption the WC has the negative is slightly amusing….”?

I wrote it Jim...   since the negative the magazines got was a poor copy of the negative from 133-A... except the negative for 133-A was either lost or never actually recovered... or made it too obvious the image was a composite....

Once in possession of a decent photo, creating and retouching the negative is not that difficult....

 

 

In Jeff Carter's great series on the BYP:  We are to remember that both LUMPKIN and WHITE were well-versed in photography as well as being associated with Military Intel.

An internal FBI memorandum dated March 25, 1964 is far less circumspect, stating: “Based on our investigation it would appear all of the photographs emanated from the Dallas Police Department.” The Dallas Police, as the HSCA would later confirm, “made numerous copies and did not control the dissemination.” Life Magazine negotiated a price of $5000 with Marina Oswald’s business agents for the publication rights to the photo, but the photo itself came from “an enterprising young man in the Dallas Police Department.” Life had an “original copy negative” of the photo, made in Dallas. (Shaneyfelt Exhibit 10)²

 

Yet as I reread the 1979 report excerpt from below...

An [sic] April 1, 1977, the committee received from Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, the widow of George de Mohrenschildt, a photograph of Oswald standing in a yard and holding a rifle in one hand and two newspapers in the other hand.(58) A gun was strapped in a holster on his hip. This photograph, which was similar to other photographs recovered in a search of Oswald's property on November 23, 1963, had never been seen by the Warren Commission or law enforcement official.

Any idea why George would mess up the cover story for his CIA masters?  http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscademo.htm

1. III. KNOWLEDGE OF OSWALD'S POSSESSION OF THE RIFLE

2. George de Mohrenschildt testified before the Warren Commission that one evening when he and his wife visited the Oswalds at their Neely Street address in dallas, Marina Oswald exclaimed that Oswald had bought a gun and showed the gun to Jeanne de Mohrenschildt.(45) De mohrenschildt testified that this took place around Easter in the spring of 1963 and that the occasion of the visit was to take an Easter present or toy to the Oswald's daughter.(46)
3. In his testimony de Mohrenschildt related that during that visit he and Oswald stood talking in the front room.(47) Marina Oswald opened a closet door to show the gun to Jeanne, and Jeanne in turn called out to George who was in the next room that Lee had a gun.(48) De Mohrenschildt said he did not look at the gun, but that Marina said Oswald used it for target shooting and that it had a telescopic sight.(49)
4. De Mohrenschildt said he then asked Oswald "jokingly" if Oswald had taken the shot at General Walder, which had occurred in Dallas on April 10, 1963.(50) De Mohrenschildt said Oswald became tense, 'sort of shriveled" and made some kind of face in answer to the question without specifically answering the question.(51)

5. Nevertheless, in an interview at the American embassy in Haiti in December 1963 with State Department officials, the de Mohrenschildts claimed that the gun incident had occurred in the fall of 1962.(52) Mrs. de Mohrenschildt stated that Marina Oswald had said "Look how crazy he is, he has bought a hun."(53) Mrs. de Mohrenschildt said she thought Oswald had only recently purchased the gun, that it was about 4 feet long, and that she did not know if it was a rifle or a shotgun.(54) she said Marina Oswald told her there was something special about the gun, that it was either automatic or had a telescopic sight.(55) In that interview, de Mohrenschildt claimed that the last time he and his wife saw the Oswalds was in January 1963 and that the de Mohrenschildts were too busy preparing for their upcoming trip to Haiti to see the Oswalds after that.(56)

6. De Mohrenschildt had contacted the American Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, immediately after the assassination and said he had been acquainted with Lee harvey Oswald, volunteering to be of assistance during the assassination investigation.(57)

7. An April 1, 1977, the committee received from Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, the widow of George de Mohrenschildt, a photograph of Oswald standing in a yard and holding a rifle in one hand and two newspapers in the other hand.(58) A gun was strapped in a holster on his hip. This photograph, which was similar to other photographs recovered in a search of Oswald's property on November 23, 1963, had never been seen by the Warren Commission or law enforcement official.

8. On the rear of the photograph was the notation "To my friend George from Lee Oswald," with the date "5/IV/63" and another notation "Copyright Geo do M", and an inscription in Russian reading "Hunter of facists, ha-ha-ha!"(59) a handwriting panel engaged by the committee determined that the writing "To my friend George" and the Oswald signature were the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.(60) The panel was not able to conclude whether the other writing was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, or George de Mohrenschildt.(61)

9. On April 1, 1977, the committee also received from Jeanne de Mohrenschildt a copy of the manuscript of the book, "I Am A Patsy, I am A Patsy," which George de Mohrenschildt was writing about his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of de Mohrenschildt's suicide on March 29, 1977.(62) In that manuscript, de Mohrenschildt wrote that he and his wife had stumbled upon the gun photo in February 1967 in boxes of their belongings that they had placed in storage in early 1963 before their departure for Haiti im May 1963.(63) De Mohrenschildt speculated in the manuscript that Oswald had in a sense left them a "gift from the grave," placing the photograph where it could later be discovered by de Mohrenschildt.(64) He explained that the photo was among English practice records that he and his wife had loaned to Marina Oswald, and that somehow the Oswalds had managed to return those records, including the photograph, to the de Mohrenschildts's possessions.(65)

10. In the manuscript de Mohrenschildt identified the handwritten date of the photograph, "5/IV/63" as April 5, 1963-and stated that at that time he and his wife "were thousands of males away in Haiti."(66) That statement contradicts the statement de Mohrenschildt gave to Warren commission and State Department official about the dates of his travel to Haiti.

11. The circumstances of the de Mohrenschildts's learning that Oswald owned a rifle, de Mohrenschildt's comment to Oswald about the Walder shooting, and the circumstances of the "discovery" of the gun photograph in the de Mohrenschildts' possessions may indicate knowledge the de Mohrenschildts had about the violent turn Oswald's political inclinations had taken that have not been fully explored.

Edited September 24, 2019 by David Josephs

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/25/2019 at 8:45 PM, John Kozlowski said:

Did you ever find the Newsweek you were looking for? Just curious because I found nothing from the date you gave.

 

On 7/25/2019 at 8:51 PM, John Butler said:

The post I just made had this:

"Officially, an FBI summary (CE1788) would report that Dallas Police officials Will Fritz, George Doughty, George Lumpkin and Carl Day, acknowledge multiple copies of both backyard photos were made for investigation purposes immediately after the assassination, but they knew nothing concerning the dissemination to the media. Captain Fritz would refer to information published in the March 2 edition of Newsweek, claiming that Life Magazine and the others bought their copy of the photo from representatives of Marina Oswald."

Which suggests the date for the Newsweek edition was March 2, 1964.

Megathanks, John!  Best clue I've seen so far.  I'll concentrate on getting the March 2, 1964 edition of Newsweek.

[David Josephs]

On 7/25/2019 at 4:38 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Since the rifles are the same lengths, the scopes should also be the same lengths.  Minor variations in camera angles don’t change the proportions of scope length to rifle length.

Jim....  this overlay tells me the two images are not compatible based on sizes of things within the photo.  

We do not know the angle of the BYP rifle with respect to the Camera...as it is tilted toward or away the size gets skewed smaller... the ce139 images are all straight on so the rifle appears larger.... sizing them for an accurate comparison is greatly restricted due to the details of each photo.

With Frazier getting C250 from Klein and 700 of the same rifles are at Century Intl Arms, having more than 1 FC Carcano was no big deal....

while the rifle in the BYPs may not be 139, it is still a Fucile Corto with a standard cheap scope....  The sizes in the BYPs are all off due to the composition of the photos....

 

On 7/25/2019 at 4:38 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

As you can see from the above, you can visually detect the slight fold in the dark shirt immediately to the viewer’s left of the scope, but the scope is clearly shorter in the LIFE illustration, as shown below.



 

[Jim Hargrove]

David,

What two images are you comparing?

The scope and the rifle are aligned parallel to each other in not one but two different dimensions.  Differences in camera angles will not alter the proportion of rifle length to scope length. Show nearly identical rifles at the same length in a comparison image, regardless of variations in the camera angle for each individual rifle, and identical scopes will also be the same length.

You cannot say there is a “standard cheap scope”  for any rifle, including the Carcano, that was sold both with and without an optical scope, as Kleins clearly did.  Many different scopes could be mounted on a rifle without a scope by someone such as… uh… Dial Ryder.

The scope is CLEARLY shorter in the BYP below, but I think John B. was onto something when he looked at other slight differences between, not only the scope, but also the rifles.  The Italian makers apparently did not completely standardize the construction of various Caracnos.  There were minor differences, as John Butler has noted.  As John Armstrong and I originally noted, the differences in the lengths of the two scopes are significant.