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)

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I just did a quick length measurement of Oswald's enormous head top to bottom as seen in the Life magazine photo above.

I wanted to then use that measurement on other points and objects in the photo.

Just with the newspaper or magazine Oswald is holding the length of his head top to bottom takes up 80% of the up and down vertical length of that paper.

Hopefully others can do the same with Oswald's up and down head length measurements and compare them to other fixed objects measurements in the photo.

Perhaps the staircase steps?

Very unscientific I know...but I still feel Oswald's head is way too big for his body in that Life Magazine picture.

This brings you right to page 212 of the HSCA report and their test photo thru Oswald's camera. The head increases in size when higher up in the frame. In fact you can see it better in the slats on the side  or the size of the window. I don't know if it was faked but it is worth considering.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=218&tab=page

[Paul Jolliffe]

16 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I truly hate raining on the parade.... as I agree on the discrepancies... but the bolt is open and moved closer to the rear of the rifle in the top image, whereas the bottom, look where the bolt is in relation to the scope.  Also slightly different angles.

 

FWIW...   seemed to me the bolts were in diff positions... I was wrong.

other than different rifles, only the angles of the images could be causing the diff.

and I agree that ce139 was not the TSBD rifle....

 

 

 

 

 

 

David,

I read your lengthy work on the TSBD rifle some time ago, and I agree that the rifle found by the Dallas Police almost certainly was not the rifle that is now CE 139 in the National Archives.

(I'm trying to remember: did you conclude that the rifle found by the DPD was actually a Mauser, or from the pictures taken outside the TSBD, could you not say?)

While looking at the photos is interesting, the most salient point is simple: at no point on Friday afternoon did anyone (the DPD, Dallas County Sheriff's Office, national media, or otherwise) identify the TSBD rifle as the 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano now in evidence at the Archives.

We know there were written reports about that rifle from Friday afternoon, but suspiciously, some of what should have been the most detailed reports are not in the official record.

(Instead, we have the reports written days after-the-fact from the DPD that identify the rifle as the Mannlicher Carcano.)

So when did the identification (switch) take place?

Late Friday night/early Saturday morning after the FBI took possession of all of the "evidence" collected by the DPD. Remember, the FBI flew everything the DPD had on an early morning flight from Dallas to Washington on Saturday. That "evidence" was then returned to the DPD a few days later, after the FBI had "improved" it. 

Meanwhile, no one who saw or discovered the rifle in the TSBD on Friday could later be certain that what they got back from the FBI was, in fact, the same rifle originally given to the FBI!

Don't take my word for it.

Here, beginning at the 11:34 mark until the 12: 45 mark, is Eugene Boone stating exactly that, under oath! 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Paul Jolliffe

[Jim Hargrove]

8 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

LIFE Magazine described what was in their possession as a "copy negative".

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=475&tab=page

The Dallas Police reports from 11/23/63 described finding two negatives at Ruth Paine's (133-A & 133-B), and two negatives are listed as received at police headquarters shortly thereafter. Oswald was shown a print of 133-A later that day, presumably created from the negative. How, why, or when this negative disappeared has never been determined.

The FBI determined that all existing prints beyond those initially discovered (the "drugstore prints" of 133-A and 133-B), were created at Dallas Police HDQ, and that would include the one in possession of James Martin. The "drugstore prints" were not of inferior quality, but were quite small (3"x3").

A good research project - and perhaps some resources could be pooled to facilitate this, if it is feasible - would involve creating hi-res scans of the best versions available at National Archives. The reliance now is on copies of copies, some of which had been subject to photo enhancement by outlets such as LIFE.

 

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I looked into this a bit at one point and made a few discoveries. The HSCA photo panel claimed the enlargement from 133a created on the 23rd and the multiple versions of 133c they retrieved from White, Studebaker and Stovall all came from the original negatives. This means that, in the eyes of the HSCA, the DPD had ALL THREE negatives but only turned the negative to 133b over to the Warren Commission. The location of the other two remains a mystery. 

Now, to be fair, Studebaker tried to deal with this in his HSCA testimony. He claimed the copies he handed out were made from photos, and not negatives. So...there's a divide...which made Gary Mack's mind spin when I first pointed it out. If one trusts the photo panel than one is forced to conclude the DPD stole not one but two of the three negatives they'd recovered. If one trusts the DPD, on the other hand, then the photo panel was wrong, and couldn't tell a copy of a copy from a first generation print. 

John A. described this sorry situation this way in the new article that prompted this thread:

The search of the Paine's home was conducted by Detectives Gus Rose, H.M. Moore, R.H. Stovall, and John P. Adamcik. Rose said they found two sea bags, three suit cases, and two card­board boxes, which contained numerous items of evidence that belonged to Oswald. Rose said he found two negatives and one snapshot of Oswald holding a rifle, while Irving Police Officer John McCabe said he found a second "backyard photograph" in an off-white colored sea bag. Detective Adamcik, however, disagreed with both Rose and McCabe. Adamcik said that he found 2 "backyard photos" in a packet of 47 photographs and initialed each photograph. Two hours after they arrived at the Paine home the detectives took three backyard photos, which were initialed and dated, and one negative (133-B), to DPD headquarters (Rose, WC Vol. VII, p. 231). These three photos, shown below, are the only "backyard photos" found by the Dallas Police. The negatives for 133-A and 133-C were never found.

Pat Speer is correct that only the negative for 133-B was ever acquired by the Warren Commission.  In the original typed DPD lists of Oswald’s possessions, before the FBI got involved and produced a vastly expanded and falsified list, only Stovall Exhibit B lists anything about negatives.

 

The article, for those entering this thread in the middle, is here:

https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html

 

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

The WC scope appears to be significantly larger than a difference produced by camera angles or distance of the rifle photographed.  The WC scope protrudes beyond the bolt assembly by a greater distance than the BYP scope.  Both scopes protrude beyond the scope mount at about the same distance to the front.

The WC scope is tilted downward at a greater degree than the BYP scope which is tilted upwards.  This may well indicate that the two scope mounts are different. 

The rifle stocks appear to be different due to the sculpting of the stock of the BYP rifle has greater curves than the WC stock.

The bolt grip or handle seems to be different in the two rifles according to the red lines drawn from the top of the butt stock to the top of the rifle's end.

 

John,

Thank you for these clear lines of comparison.  The only point you make that I disagree with is the tilting of the scope.  That may be caused, at least in my opinion, by a not quite preceise rotation of the Backyard photo rifle.  I did my best, but I can see from your lines that it is not quite perfectly parallel with CE 139.  Thanks again.

[John Butler]

Jim,

The orientation of the BYP rifle in relation to the orientation of the WC rifle IMO doesn't matter that much.  The two rifles do not need to be parallel in order to show that the WC rifle's scope tilts downward and the BYP rifle tilts slightly upward.  Or, is at least the BYP rifle scope is in the same plane as the red line I drew from the butt to the front end of the rifle.  You can put the BYP rifle in a vertical position and that would still be the same.  The WC rifle's scope points significantly downwards.  This differs from the BYP scope suggesting a different mount.  You can also see the shirt of the Oswald figure through the BYP scope mount and that indicates a different scope mount.  Some may say this is simply light reflecting off the metal of the mount and this may be true.  However, that light area has the same quality as light areas on the shirt of the Oswald figure.  The front end of the BYP scope is larger as indicated by the sloping line at the bottom of the front part of the scope.  If not larger at least shaped differently.

The BYP's bolt handle protrudes lower than the wooden stock of the rifle in comparison to what is shown in the above CE 139 exhibit.  One would ordinarily think that this is simply due to camera angle or the orientation of the rifle in the BYP photo.  But, the butt stocks seem to be in a vertical position in both photos.  Mean while the front of the BYP rifle seems to be orientated slightly towards the back of the photo.  If you look at the front part of the rifle, particularly the barrel, you will notice that the outline is rough and jagged indicating the rifle is a cut and paste item. 

The Oswald figure's long spidery fingers do not appear to be natural either.  The bolt handle appears to be painted on when compared to the WC rifle, CE 139.  It is not perfectly symmetrical as the bolt handle in the WC rifle photo.  In the BYP photo the trigger, trigger guard, and magazine do not appear to be there.  But, on lightening the photo they are there.

Edited July 2, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Jim,

Are these photos and negatives available to be viewed?  It would be interesting to see what they are.  Alan J. Weberman, if memory serves, had photos developed from the film in one of Oswald's cameras.  They were interesting showing things that the WC didn't see.  I wonder about the others?

[Jeff Carter]

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

John A. described this sorry situation this way in the new article that prompted this thread:

The search of the Paine's home was conducted by Detectives Gus Rose, H.M. Moore, R.H. Stovall, and John P. Adamcik. Rose said they found two sea bags, three suit cases, and two card­board boxes, which contained numerous items of evidence that belonged to Oswald. Rose said he found two negatives and one snapshot of Oswald holding a rifle, while Irving Police Officer John McCabe said he found a second "backyard photograph" in an off-white colored sea bag. Detective Adamcik, however, disagreed with both Rose and McCabe. Adamcik said that he found 2 "backyard photos" in a packet of 47 photographs and initialed each photograph. Two hours after they arrived at the Paine home the detectives took three backyard photos, which were initialed and dated, and one negative (133-B), to DPD headquarters (Rose, WC Vol. VII, p. 231). These three photos, shown below, are the only "backyard photos" found by the Dallas Police. The negatives for 133-A and 133-C were never found.

Pat Speer is correct that only the negative for 133-B was ever acquired by the Warren Commission.  In the original typed DPD lists of Oswald’s possessions, before the FBI got involved and produced a vastly expanded and falsified list, only Stovall Exhibit B lists anything about negatives.

 

The article, for those entering this thread in the middle, is here:

https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html

 

The Identification Bureau at Dallas Police HQ wrote a receipt at 4 PM 11/23/63 listing two negatives of Oswald holding rifle.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338992/

I am not aware of any official document generated in 1963-64 referring to the third Backyard photo. 

[Jeff Carter]

14 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Are these photos and negatives available to be viewed?  It would be interesting to see what they are.  Alan J. Weberman, if memory serves, had photos developed from the film in one of Oswald's cameras.  They were interesting showing things that the WC didn't see.  I wonder about the others?

John - have a look at Commission Document 443 and also CIA 201 File Volume 32 Item 21 for photos/images from Oswald/Paines. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Jeff Carter

[John Butler]

Thanks Jeff,

I looked briefly at Commission Document 443.  Interesting photos.  I am going to look at those closer later.

Once again thanks for the references.

[David Josephs]

On 7/1/2019 at 11:20 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

I'm trying to remember: did you conclude that the rifle found by the DPD was actually a Mauser, or from the pictures taken outside the TSBD, could you not say?)

From the look of it, it was not a Mauser, or at least if there was a scope, it would have covered the word Mauser.

I believe I mention the Mauser came into being by Weitzman when he did not see or find a clip....  the clip was obtained at some later point.

Then again, maybe there was no scope...

 

the caption embedded is wrong... stripper clip does not go into the Carcano....

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Identification Bureau at Dallas Police HQ wrote a receipt at 4 PM 11/23/63 listing two negatives of Oswald holding rifle.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338992/

I am not aware of any official document generated in 1963-64 referring to the third Backyard photo. 

Thanks, Jeff!  

Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures? 
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle. 

Assuming Rose (and Hicks for the receipt) are telling the truth, my bet is the FBI "lost" one of the negatives.  Why?

[John Butler]

Oswald was not a camera shy guy.  He chronicled his career everywhere early on, but less in later years in film.   A scene from Oswald's life, probably never seen by most.  It appears to be a red light district in Japan.  Maybe, this is where he performed his duty.

Anyway, the Mary Ferrell's Oswald's CIA 201 is filled with images from his past in Russia, Japan, New Orleans, etc.  Unfortunately, a good deal of the images are of low quality and not really that informative due to quality.  And, my slightly cynical nature makes me wonder about that.

All in all, there are images available that I have not seen in books or on the internet.   

Edited July 4, 2019 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

Not all of the images in these collections are claimed to have been among Classic Oswald’s® possessions, at least I don’t think so.  John A. was the only person I know of who sat at the National Archives and looked at every photo—front and back—in the so-called Oswald’s possessions collection.  He said, from memory, that there were probably fewer than 30 or 50 in total.

Some were what you would expect, including the Bronx Zoo and New Orleans, and some from the Far East, and a number of pictures were in the distinctive Minox camera format.  He also said there were some that made no sense, such as photos of the Roman Colosseum and from London.  

[Jim Hargrove]

Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio interview of John Armstrong about his revelations on the Back Yard Photos will air tonight starting at 6 pm PST.   It should be archived as Show # 946 soon after it airs.

https://blackopradio.com/

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

Oswald was not a camera shy guy.  He chronicled his career everywhere early on, but less in later years in film.   A scene from Oswald's life, probably never seen by most.  It appears to be a red light district in Japan.  Maybe, this is where he performed his duty.

Anyway, the Mary Ferrell's Oswald's CIA 201 is filled with images from his past in Russia, Japan, New Orleans, etc.  Unfortunately, a good deal of the images are of low quality and not really that informative due to quality.  And, my slightly cynical nature makes me wonder about that.

All in all, there are images available that I have not seen in books or on the internet.   

Also note that the 201 file images also include quite a few photos which are the Paine's'. The first set, in Commission Documents, is a more accurate reflection of what can be dubbed the "Oswald photos". And many of those were taken by other people. Your observation that he took less photos as time went on is correct. The HSCA , via Cecil Kirk, tried to imply otherwise.