Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 16, 2022 20:45:10 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
On many occasions the Warren Commission (WC) lied about its OWN evidence. This is one of them.
*************************************
On page 125 of the WC Report you will find the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0076a.gif
One of these pictures [Backyard], Exhibit No. 133-A, shows most of the rifle’s configuration. Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photographic expert with the FBI, photographed the rifle used in the assassination, attempting to duplicate the position of the rifle and the lighting in Exhibit No. 133-A. After comparing the rifle in the simulated photograph with the rifle in Exhibit No. 133-A, Shaneyfelt testified “I found it to be the same general configuration All appearances were the same.” He found “one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph.” He stated, however, while he found “no differences” between the rifles the rifles in the two photographs, he could not make a “positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.” (WCR, pp. 125 & 127)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075a.htm
Quote off
Did you notice the first false claim? It was the part where they said Shaneyfelt “photographed the rifle used in the assassination” as this was NEVER proven to be true at all. There is NO link between CE-139 and LHO let alone a link between CE-139 and the killing of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Also, while they quickly touched on his testimony they did NOT accurately represent what he said. While he did say he found “no differences” between the rifle seen in CE-133A and CE-139 in the picture he created, that was EXACTLY the reason he could NOT say they were the same rifle! Here is his testimony pertaining to this topic.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Notice how he said “I did NOT find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification” on? He NEVER said the rifles in the two photos (CE-133A and the one he created with the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (presumably CE-139)) were the same, but the WC left that impression by highlighting that he found “no differences” between the two rifles.
They quickly brushed over the point of him NOT being able to make a positive ID too to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
On many occasions the Warren Commission (WC) lied about its OWN evidence. This is one of them.
*************************************
On page 125 of the WC Report you will find the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0076a.gif
One of these pictures [Backyard], Exhibit No. 133-A, shows most of the rifle’s configuration. Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photographic expert with the FBI, photographed the rifle used in the assassination, attempting to duplicate the position of the rifle and the lighting in Exhibit No. 133-A. After comparing the rifle in the simulated photograph with the rifle in Exhibit No. 133-A, Shaneyfelt testified “I found it to be the same general configuration All appearances were the same.” He found “one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph.” He stated, however, while he found “no differences” between the rifles the rifles in the two photographs, he could not make a “positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.” (WCR, pp. 125 & 127)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075a.htm
Quote off
Did you notice the first false claim? It was the part where they said Shaneyfelt “photographed the rifle used in the assassination” as this was NEVER proven to be true at all. There is NO link between CE-139 and LHO let alone a link between CE-139 and the killing of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Also, while they quickly touched on his testimony they did NOT accurately represent what he said. While he did say he found “no differences” between the rifle seen in CE-133A and CE-139 in the picture he created, that was EXACTLY the reason he could NOT say they were the same rifle! Here is his testimony pertaining to this topic.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Notice how he said “I did NOT find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification” on? He NEVER said the rifles in the two photos (CE-133A and the one he created with the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (presumably CE-139)) were the same, but the WC left that impression by highlighting that he found “no differences” between the two rifles.
They quickly brushed over the point of him NOT being able to make a positive ID too to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.