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]

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

Oswald Timeline and Oswald and Subic Bay by boat:

 

October 27, 1957: LHO accidentally shoots himself in the arm with a derringer.

 

November 15, 1957: LHO is discharged from the hospital at Yokosuka, (He spends 19 days in the hospital).  Isn’t that an excessive length of time for a minor wound? 

 

November 20, 1957: LHO’s unit sails for the Philippine Islands.

 

March 7, 1958: LHO's unit sails for Atsugi.

 

March 18, 1958: The unit reaches Atsugi.

 

Roscoe White and Subic Bay:

 

 

25 Nov. 57 by boat to Subic Bay- arrives 29 Nov. 57.

15 Mar. 58 by boat to Atsugi- arrives 17 Mar. 58.

 

Jim,

 

I notice in the movement orders of White and Oswald there is no paper for Oswald traveling to and from Japan and the Phillipines / Atsugi to Subic Bay.

 

The timeline says his unit traveled by boat (sailed).  It says his unit rather than him.  Why is there no paper like White for this?  Did he go with them or was he sent later by plane?

 

This photo found in the military photo sections of his 201 file might suggest traveling by air.

 

 

This appears to be an aerial view taken by Oswald since it is in his 201 file.  It might be Oswald got to fly around the Subic Bay area.  If so then why?

 

It is a bit strange so I thought I would get your view on it. 

John,

This gets complicated because we're talking about two different Oswalds in the Marine Corps. The records were partially, but incompletely, merged. Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was secretly brought to Japan (where American-born Lee Oswald was already serving), and spent a day or so in the brig to avoid being seen with his counterpart, and then left Japan aboard the the USS Skagit on September 14, 1958 for a trip to the South China Sea and a stay in and around Ping Tung, Taiwan.  Here are USMC documents showing when Harvey left on "AKA 105," which was the USS Skagit, and that he was in Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958.

 

In the meantime, American-born Lee Oswald remained in Japan where he was rather famously treated for venereal disease.  All these treatments happened while Harvey Oswald was aboard the Skagit and in Taiwan.

 

If you want to look at this in greater detail, start reading roughly halfway down this page:

https://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Jim, regarding the rear part of the scope,  it is possible that if the rifle itself was added by the CIA, Maybe they accidentally  cut off the rear of the scope and had to draw it in. Another possibility is the photo came out too dark to show the scope and Life Magazine or someone else drew in the scope and the lighter pants behind it. It is also possible that it is a different scope as you say. I just don't what to think yet. Right now it looks to me like the rear portion does not align with the middle and front parts and that makes me wonder.

Anything is possible, I suppose, but despite all the speculation and conjecture, what is obvious now is that the famous rifle and scope from the BYPs does not appear to be the same rifle and scope put into evidence by the Dallas Police and the WC.  Anyone who wants to say the rifles/scopes were the same must now prove why they appear so different.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Anything is possible, I suppose, but despite all the speculation and conjecture, what is obvious now is that the famous rifle and scope from the BYPs does not appear to be the same rifle and scope put into evidence by the Dallas Police and the WC.  Anyone who wants to say the rifles/scopes were the same must now prove why they appear so different.

I will only quibble a little with this. You could also say it appears the image of the rifle and scope may have been tampered with. It could be a different scope used by Roscoe White or it is the same rifle with photographic alteration to bring out the dark image of the scope or correct an error in the cut and paste.
 When I draw a horizontal line along the scope and base it on the front and middle section it all looks good. But if I extend the line that was based on the front and middle thru the back of the scope it suddenly shows a pronounced angle. That rear section does not line up with the front and middle. I could be seeing things but take a look at that issue for yourself and see what you see.

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I will only quibble a little with this. You could also say it appears the image of the rifle and scope may have been tampered with. It could be a different scope used by Roscoe White or it is the same rifle with photographic alteration to bring out the dark image of the scope or correct an error in the cut and paste.
 When I draw a horizontal line along the scope and base it on the front and middle section it all looks good. But if I extend the line that was based on the front and middle thru the back of the scope it suddenly shows a pronounced angle. That rear section does not line up with the front and middle. I could be seeing things but take a look at that issue for yourself and see what you see.

No doubt a discovery of this importance begs for careful vetting, and so I appreciate the discussion, Chris.  We agree, apparently, that the only way for the two rifle/scope combos to be identical is for one or both images to have been retouched.  (Please correct me if you disagree.)

If I understand your concern correctly, you feel that the back part (toward the end of the rifle barrel) of the scope in the BYP does not line up with the front and middle parts and that it therefore may have been added.  You agree with me, I think, that the net effect of retouching the BYP scope would have been to significantly shorten it, thus requiring the addition of clothing and, perhaps, a thumb, to fill in behind the missing part of the retouched scope.  This alone strikes me as exceptionally difficult and unlikely in 1963 or 1964.

Let’s look again at your study: 

You indicate that the red lines in the small rectangular inset are not totally straight, and I agree, though the lack of alignment is slight.  But if you redrew the lines with a straight edge from one end of the BYP scope to the other, I suspect a reasonable case could be made that, within the limits of resolution and insufficient grey scales, they do align.

What always struck me as a little unusual about the barrel end of the BYP scope is that it seems to get gradually wider toward the end.  The same part of the scope in CE 139 seems to get wider only toward the end of the tube.  This, of course, may be a function of resolution and lack of contrast, or it may be, as I suspect, the fact that they’re different scopes.

[John Butler]

Jim,

You said, "In the meantime, American-born Lee Oswald remained in Japan where he was rather famously treated for venereal disease.  All these treatments happened while Harvey Oswald was aboard the Skagit and in Taiwan."

I want to focus in on Lee Oswald's VD.  It may be of no importance or might be of importance.  I'm not a medical person and have little knowledge of these things.  What knowledge I have of this matter says that Oswald may not have had a Venereal Disease.  The 1950s and 60s was a time when the medical profession had trouble diagnosing and treating viral diseases.

Oswald was diagnosed with an extracellular disease m. gonococcui..  Extracellular refers to a bacteriological infection such as gonorrhea .  So, he was treated with penicillin and other drugs that work on VDs such as gonorrhea. 

His symptoms should have cleared within 2-3 days, but did not.  They lingered from pre- Sept. 16 to Oct. 24, 1958, about 40+ days.  This I find this extraordinary and suspicious.

On the 24th he is finally being cleared of his disease.  There is a note there in another handwriting prescribing pyridium.  Pyridium in those days was generally prescribed with furandantin and are sulfa drugs to treat urine tract infections if penicillin doesn't work.  Sulfa drugs work on intracellular or viral infections.

How do I know this?  Army medics explained all of this to me when I had to deal with this concerning a young GI.  I was stationed in Korea where 70% of the GIs there caught some type of VD.  I'm going to bet the same situation applied in Japan.  I had to deal with this when one young man refused to take these drugs and was found in bed very sick, feverish and bleeding from his penis because of a VD resistant to penicillin and he was refusing to take the sulfa drugs, furandantin and pyridium prescribed.

All that said, I think this medical record could be a fraud designed to give Lee Oswald cover while he did something else.  A 6 weeks treatment for a VD is ludicrous.  I think the different writing, handwritten extra note on pyridium is there so that anyone who do have knowledge of these matters would not get too suspicious and simply think that Oswald was misdiagnosed for a period of time and was not treated properly. 

Or, this may be a true record.  If so, the key to understanding that would be the prescription of pyridium for 5 days.  That seems to have cleared his "severe heavy discharge".

All in all, Army and Marine doctors and medics were very familiar with venereal diseases and would not allowed this situation to linger for 40 days.  It is my opinion that something is up here.

PS,

This is a great example of the Harvey and Lee notion.  Harvey and Lee may be in different areas at different times, but eventually they will be in the same area at the same time.   

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Jim,

Here's one for Chris to work on.

Are the two rifles the same as measured from the end of the front part of the stock to the end of the rifle.  The WC rifle barrel at the end, illustrated by the red line just to show the correct area,  measures roughly 35 mm and the BYP rifle at the end measures 37 mm. 

Is this true or simply the difference in the size of the rifles portrayed here?

[John Butler]

Jim,

Chris Barstow may very well be right is suspecting that the scope is a put together cut and paste item.  I base this not only on the scope other features pointed to in this crop and enlargement of the BYP rifle.

The arrow that points to the scope area has already had peculiarities described.  The arrow pointing to the bolt handle is another problem.  I don't think you will be able to find another photo of a bolt handle of a rifle that looks like that.  When compared to the WC photo that handle clearly screams cut and paste fraud. 

The long spidery fingers are very weird.  The smallest finger has a extra large appearance at the end of the finger.  The last and second to last fingers there do not appear to have knuckles at the bottom of the hand.  There are deep shadows separating those fingers suggesting no knuckles there.  And, they should be there.  The first and middle fingers have irregular outlines and distorted shapes that suggest cut and pasting.  But, they do have an area between fingers that shows the bottom part of the hand are knuckles as versus the other part of the hand.  The knuckles should be in a line straight across the bottom of the hand as shown here.

The thumb is thicker than one should be in comparison to the fingers.

This suggests that the M-C rifle in the BYP didn't have a scope on the rifle and one was added.  Who would of ever thought of that? 

Edited July 10, 2019 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Here's one for Chris to work on.

Are the two rifles the same as measured from the end of the front part of the stock to the end of the rifle.  The WC rifle barrel at the end, illustrated by the red line just to show the correct area,  measures roughly 35 mm and the BYP rifle at the end measures 37 mm. 

Is this true or simply the difference in the size of the rifles portrayed here?

Interesting! With just a quick measurement on my monitor, it sure looks as if the barrel of CE 139 protrudes beyond the wooden stock slightly less than in the BYP.  Not a huge difference, but quite easily measured!   

Would you be interested in putting together a graphic summarizing all these anomalies that we could use on the web page?  We’d be happy to credit you. 

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Chris Barstow may very well be right is suspecting that the scope is a put together cut and paste item.  I base this not only on the scope other features pointed to in this crop and enlargement of the BYP rifle.

The arrow that points to the scope area has already had peculiarities described.  The arrow pointing to the bolt handle is another problem.  I don't think you will be able to find another photo of a bolt handle of a rifle that looks like that.  When compared to the WC photo that handle clearly screams cut and paste fraud. 

The long spidery fingers are very weird.  The smallest finger has a extra large appearance at the end of the finger.  The last and second to last fingers there do not appear to have knuckles at the bottom of the hand.  There are deep shadows separating those fingers suggesting no knuckles there.  And, they should be there.  The first and middle fingers have irregular outlines and distorted shapes that suggest cut and pasting.  But, they do have an area between fingers that shows the bottom part of the hand are knuckles as versus the other part of the hand.  The knuckles should be in a line straight across the bottom of the hand as shown here.

The thumb is thicker than one should be in comparison to the fingers.

This suggests that the M-C rifle in the BYP didn't have a scope on the rifle and one was added.  Who would of ever thought of that? 

John,

One person who wondered if the BYP rifle was originally without a scope was John Armstrong, who discussed his suspicion with me several times.  It would, for the first time, explain the Dial Ryder incident.  If the rifle didn’t have a scope, then it would be necessary to put one on it.  That would explain why an undated repair tag was placed in Ryder’s repair shop that said, “drill and tap $4.50” and “bore sight $1.50.”  And why several people called the authorities to report that fact, even though Ryder said he told no one about it over the weekend.

But, after the scope magically appeared on the backyard photo, the Ryder rescue was no longer needed.

As appealing as that explanation was, we believe the scope was always on the BYP rifle.  For one thing, there is Gus Rose’s 11-23-63 report that he turned in “2 negatives of Lee Harvey Oswald holding rifle with scope.”

It might be argued that Rose could see the public reports as well as anyone else and realize that the rifle  should damn well have a scope!  But we have little indication that he was untruthful otherwise.

To me, though, it seems that if you’re going to go to all the trouble to paste a scope on a picture of a rifle, wouldn't you make it at least approximately the right size?  This one clearly wasn’t close. 

[John Butler]

Jim,

Sure.  I'll see what I can do.  I'll base what I do on your rifle photos.  At one time I had your email address, but I have had to change email programs and no longer do.  Please send that again.

I'll send it by email so that you can edit it and use only what you consider valuable.

 

[John Butler]

Jim,

Here's something new to look at:

Notice there are 3 different scopes!!!

[Chris Bristow]

The barrel end to the stock is larger in 133a because Oswald leaned the barrel end toward the camera and that magnified the barrel end of the rifle. Because the rifle will appear shorter the less perpendicular it is to the camera, leaning the barrel end toward the camera shrinks the 133a rifle overall. The shrinking is greater than the magnification, so to compare 133a and the FBI rifle  you have to increase the size of 133a which adds to the magnification of the barrel end.
What I can't make sense of is although 133a has to be enlarged for a sized comparison, the overlay I posted earlier shows the 133a buttstock fits inside the FBI image. It is a smaller image even though 133a was magnified. At the same time the distance from the top of the notch to the rear of the buttstock is equal. Maybe the right combination of distance to camera, angle to the camera and the rotation of the rifle may reproduce the distorted rifle in 133a. I have been attempting it with a Mauser but no success yet.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Chris,

That does sound possible, but I can’t tell from the BYP image whether the end of the barrel is closer to the camera than the shoulder end of the stock.  Can you?
 

[Jim Hargrove]

14 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

Sure.  I'll see what I can do.  I'll base what I do on your rifle photos.  At one time I had your email address, but I have had to change email programs and no longer do.  Please send that again.

I'll send it by email so that you can edit it and use only what you consider valuable.

 

The addition of the close-up of Day holding the rifle is fascinating!  I still have your email address and so I’ll send you a note. 

[John Butler]

32 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Chris,

That does sound possible, but I can’t tell from the BYP image whether the end of the barrel is closer to the camera than the shoulder end of the stock.  Can you?
 

Jim,

Good point.  And, even if you could it would not be a significant difference.  I do no see any foreshortening that would decrease the length of any of the rifles that would significantly impact any analysis.  They are basically in a horizontal plane with little variance vertically or diagonally.